Anybody posted about the 13 siblings found chained in California home?

[ktgrok]

Don't even get me started on portfolio reviews.

We also have portfolio reviews in my state. I find them to be, largely, a waste of time.  It's great that you haven't heard of anyone having problems.  Last year they "trained" a bunch of new reviewers one county over and they started telling parents which curriculum they could and couldn't use for certain subjects.  That's not in the purview of the law here, at all. But new conscientious homeschoolers were, uh, discouraged to say the least. Here I have to show samples of academic work in the subjects that are in the law. In theory, I could have my kids do workbooks for a month or so and bring in two pages for each subject and they would never have any way of knowing that my kids weren't being educated.  The law is too vague to have any teeth, they don't actually get eyes on my kids, and since you don't necessarily get the same person reviewing your stuff every time, there's very little continuity to see academic progress even if that were a linear thing that you could show absolutely for every kid*.  Also the idea that an entity which I've deemed mostly incapable of educating my kids to my own satisfaction is the very entity checking to make sure I provide an adequate education.

 

*As an example, me trying to explain that my advanced math kiddo did Saxon 5/4 last year and I think technically could do pre-algebra, but I think he's too young, so he does his AMC prep math club plus linear algebra problems with his dad, but his actual math curriculum right at this moment is common core aligned with 4th grade?  Yeah, most of that pretty much goes unnoticed and they see that he's doing 4th grade level math in 5th grade and wonder why. I just think it verifies very little and yet tons of dollars are spent employing people to schedule these things, review them, etc, while their own schools could really use the money.

Here, the portfolio reviewers is a person of your choice, but they have to be a certified teacher. And they have to actually see/communicate with your child. 

 

Will they understand the nuances? No, but they will see you kid IS doing math, and is doing other work, and seems able to communicate with them, etc. Perfect? No. Better than nothing? Probably. 

[fralala]

There are social factors here that we're going to have to talk about, at some point, regardless of whether homeschooling is legal or not.

 

Kids in my state can attend public school online. Many adults work from home. (I'm not sure whether the father in this case was working from home or not, but that can add to isolation.) People order their groceries and everything else delivered to their doorstep. They need never even look the delivery person in the eye.

 

What kind of social mechanisms can we put in place to identify and prevent mental illness in an evolving culture that is so contrary to what humans really need, which is support and contact with other individuals, including the nosy neighbors whom we can't stand and the annoying in-laws who regularly drop in or call just to check on us?

 

I think there are certain supports that have been enormously successful, and have nothing to do with legislation or punishment-- say, the home visits that a nurse or midwife might provide the family of a newborn. It sounds like people who do portfolios might feel like something like that is kind of analogous (if you have a good evaluator).

[PeppermintPattie]

Lie about the curricula they use?

 

Our charter will of course only buy secular materials but you can use any resource you like to teach a subject.

We turn in one work sample a month from the four main subjects. If someone uses CLE for math they can just print a free worksheet that corresponds with what they’re doing (or cut the CLE logo off the bottom of the page and make a copy) and turn that in.

Our facilitator has a general idea of what curricula I use because I chat with her about stuff but there’s no record of it with the school.

 

 

Yes, if you want to use it as your ONE work sample per month. This is a public charter school, we receive public school funds.

 

So how can you do this honestly? I mean, if you have to cut off the CLE logo at the bottom of the page, isn't that to hide what you're really using?

 

I am sympathetic to the costs and difficulties of homeschooling that a public charter school can help with, but I hate hearing the tricks people use to break the rules, especially when it's done right under the kids' noses. 

[Ausmumof3]

This story sounds more disturbing all the time to be honest. The husband watched the wife's sister in the shower when she was "young and didn't know what to do". The baby is two and the mother is 49. While a birth at that stage is possible it does raise some questions. The way the girls are dressed to look so young (at least some of them must have been over 20 in those photos). The pics from the house in Texas before. Yuck. Those poor people.

[TravelingChris]

There are social factors here that we're going to have to talk about, at some point, regardless of whether homeschooling is legal or not.

 

Kids in my state can attend public school online. Many adults work from home. (I'm not sure whether the father in this case was working from home or not, but that can add to isolation.) People order their groceries and everything else delivered to their doorstep. They need never even look the delivery person in the eye.

 

What kind of social mechanisms can we put in place to identify and prevent mental illness in an evolving culture that is so contrary to what humans really need, which is support and contact with other individuals, including the nosy neighbors whom we can't stand and the annoying in-laws who regularly drop in or call just to check on us?

 

I think there are certain supports that have been enormously successful, and have nothing to do with legislation or punishment-- say, the home visits that a nurse or midwife might provide the family of a newborn. It sounds like people who do portfolios might feel like something like that is kind of analogous (if you have a good evaluator).

 

Well were these kids even born in a hospital? Do we even know if these kids had educational neglect to the extent that they couldn't pass tests or go see and evaluator and pass their judgements. As someone who has had experience with law enforcement, social services, and knowledge of abuse cases in very highly monitored situations, I do not see any easy answers here. I deal with realism.  These kids went to Disney land and Las Vegas and did not raise anyone's suspicions at that time enough to get anyone to do anything. THat girl who was a victim of Manchausen by Proxy and ending up in a conspiracy of killing her mother went to lots and lots of doctors and saw LE people.  Could CA have an actual decent homeschool law- maybe but unfortunately I think it would end up in with some restrictive anti religious garbage and nothing to help mentally ill, or stop evil abuse.  

The levels of intrusion needed to weed out abuse is totallitarian level.  

[ikslo]

My ideal reporting counsel for homeschool would be a state council for homeschooling that administered the proctored tests and did home visits, with members elected BY the other home educators. Hopefully the interest in self policing would be high and everyone would be more comfortable with home visits and portfolio reviews by other former homeschooling parents, than by a district or state education board who has a potential hatred of the entire model.

 

It’s probably a pipe dream, but I’d vote for one!

I’m fine with PA’s requirement for portfolio reviews. However, I go to her; she doesn’t come to my home.

 

I don’t feel the need to live under the watchful control of the government just because I homeschool. They can stay out of my house, thank you very much. Unless every school-aged child gets home visits, b&m included. Which I don’t see people putting up with.

 

Are cyber schoolers also to get home visits under your plan?

[sassenach]

Does that mean the $140K he made before losing the job wasn't really much due to CA col? I didn't think of that because that amount is quite a decent salary here - you could live nice and comfortably. But now that you mention it, I wonder if it's not such a big salary there.

It’s a decent salary for the area they live. We make less than that and live in an area that housing is probably about double. Smaller family, though.

[Ausmumof3]

Well were these kids even born in a hospital? Do we even know if these kids had educational neglect to the extent that they couldn't pass tests or go see and evaluator and pass their judgements. As someone who has had experience with law enforcement, social services, and knowledge of abuse cases in very highly monitored situations, I do not see any easy answers here. I deal with realism. These kids went to Disney land and Las Vegas and did not raise anyone's suspicions at that time enough to get anyone to do anything. THat girl who was a victim of Manchausen by Proxy and ending up in a conspiracy of killing her mother went to lots and lots of doctors and saw LE people. Could CA have an actual decent homeschool law- maybe but unfortunately I think it would end up in with some restrictive anti religious garbage and nothing to help mentally ill, or stop evil abuse.

The levels of intrusion needed to weed out abuse is totallitarian level.

One comment was they "had a lot of books in the garage". Kids could have been educated from a book viewpoint but not physically cared for I guess.

[sassenach]

My ideal reporting counsel for homeschool would be a state council for homeschooling that administered the proctored tests and did home visits, with members elected BY the other home educators. Hopefully the interest in self policing would be high and everyone would be more comfortable with home visits and portfolio reviews by other former homeschooling parents, than by a district or state education board who has a potential hatred of the entire model.

 

It’s probably a pipe dream, but I’d vote for one!

Mandated home visits? Nope.

 

I’d be ok with an annual meeting as long as the people conducting the meeting understood the wide spectrum of what education can be. Our charter school teachers, whom we met with monthly, were our biggest cheerleaders. Just total gems who understood kids and homeschooling. Once a year with someone like that? Absolutely.

 

As an aside, one of our charter teachers wrote me the most encouraging note a few years ago. Not the type of affirmation a homeschooler gets very often. It meant so much to me.

[displace]

 

So I do think that we are headed toward greatly increased homeschooling regulations. We can complain about how most homeschoolers aren't like that, but if the public sees homeschooling as an option that makes abuse easier to hide then public opinion will be for increased regulation.

 

Really, it's like flying. We can say that flying is safe. We can cite statistics about how much safer air travel is than driving or we can cite statistics about how rare hijackings are. But at the end of the day, a tragedy like 9-11 happens so we increase screening and security. As a society, we have agreed to give up some personal freedom when we fly in order to prevent those few horrific tragedies.

 

Personally, I would have no problem with an annual visit to lay eyes on my kids. In our state we already register, keep attendance, and test annually. I have seen first-hand how those simple requirements have done enormous good by preventing bad homeschooling situations or giving parents the information they need to get back on track. I can only see good coming from an annual visit to the home.

Re: increased regulation...

 

I think that most states won’t bother increasing regulation. I think the likelihood of a politician taking these instances and passing laws is unlikely. I feel most politicians can’t pass any laws for almost anything nowadays, and Homeschooling still seems kind of a fringe topic.

 

But, maybe politicians love fringe topics that don’t affect many voters and everyone wants to see more regulated?

[Twolittleboys]

I am for a reasonable level of oversight but I think there is no way to completely stop serious abuse (especially if mental illnesses are involved) without an almost totalitarian control. I live in a country with a lot more control in these matters but even so there is occasionally a shocking discovery. Controls are more likely to discover cases that are less severe because there may be less of an effort to hide them.

[EmseB]

Here, the portfolio reviewers is a person of your choice, but they have to be a certified teacher. And they have to actually see/communicate with your child. 

 

Will they understand the nuances? No, but they will see you kid IS doing math, and is doing other work, and seems able to communicate with them, etc. Perfect? No. Better than nothing? Probably. 

 

That's interesting. It doesn't seem too much different from having someone from CPS check in on you to make sure your kid is doing okay by their standards. And if their standards aren't met?

 

I'm not a "something is better than nothing" person by nature, simply because, in general, the authority given to the people doing something is usually pretty vast, even if it is not applied at the outset.

[TravelingChris]

Or they would find a way to fool the person into giving them a stamp of approval. Abusers are master manipulators and will use the government approval to justify whatever they are doing.

 

Absolutely. They don't necessarily have to fool much of anything.  We do not know that these kids were not educated at all, We know they were horribly abused and this story gets worse and worse. 

 

And it turns out that CA does have an avenue they can pursue which is annual fire inspection which is under the CA law already for private schools,  I never heard of anyone doing that actually but they could without changing the law at all.  Not quite sure what a fire inspection in a home would look like- I mean fire extinguisher maybe and smoke alarms and not having flammables next to furnace type deal? 

[Guinevere]

It makes me more nervous to be regulated and inspected by other homeschoolers than it does a government entity with some oversight. All it takes is one do-gooder with an agenda, and everyone has lots of problems. I've met some weird people in this homeschooling journey, and I'd really rather not be told by any of them how I should raise my kids.

[ktgrok]

That's interesting. It doesn't seem too much different from having someone from CPS check in on you to make sure your kid is doing okay by their standards. And if their standards aren't met?

 

I'm not a "something is better than nothing" person by nature, simply because, in general, the authority given to the people doing something is usually pretty vast, even if it is not applied at the outset.

The standard is "progress commensurate with their ability". If the teacher you pick refuses to sign off you can try another one until you find one that does. But I've literally NEVER heard of that happening, ever. neither has anyone I know ever heard of it. Because the evaluators do this by choice and are pro homeschooling.

[Ausmumof3]

It makes me more nervous to be regulated and inspected by other homeschoolers than it does a government entity with some oversight. All it takes is one do-gooder with an agenda, and everyone has lots of problems. I've met some weird people in this homeschooling journey, and I'd really rather not be told by any of them how I should raise my kids.

Yes there's too much variation in how people homeschool. However I think the people doing it should at least be educated in some common homeschool methods and how they work.

[EmseB]

The standard is "progress commensurate with their ability". If the teacher you pick refuses to sign off you can try another one until you find one that does. But I've literally NEVER heard of that happening, ever. neither has anyone I know ever heard of it. Because the evaluators do this by choice and are pro homeschooling.

So either I'm confused or you're telling me that the review is basically pointless. If nothing happens when a teacher won't sign off on a review, and I can just go look for someone else to sign, but it doesn't matter anyway because teachers always sign off because they are pro-homeschooling volunteers...what's the actual point? That sounds like a huge waste of resources. You're saying no teacher ever refuses to sign because the education being provided is insufficient? All homeschoolers are doing an adequate job in your state?

 

And aside from all that, how does the teacher know the kid is progressing according to their ability? They have to take the parent's word, no?

Edited January 17, 2018 by EmseB

[Ausmumof3]

So either I'm confused or you're telling me that the review is basically pointless. If nothing happens when a teacher won't sign off on a review, and I can just go look for someone else to sign, but it doesn't matter anyway because teachers always sign off because they are pro-homeschooling volunteers...what's the actual point? That sounds like a huge waste of resources. You're saying no teacher ever refuses to sign because the education being provided is insufficient? All homeschoolers are doing an adequate job in your state?

 

And aside from all that, how does the teacher know the kid is progressing according to their ability? They have to take the parent's word, no?

The point is the kids are seen by a mandatory reporter who will hopefully notice if all of the kids seem malnourished and small.

[Lady Florida.]

I don’t know, to me this sounds a bit like you’re saying that since we can’t save *every* abused child, we shouldn’t bother trying to save more of them than we are right now. I don’t expect government regulations, on this or anything else, to be 100% effective. But that doesn’t mean they don’t help.

 

Personally, yes, I am indeed eager to give up my right to homeschool without ANY oversight if it would save even one single child from abuse. The phrase “freedom isn’t free†applies here. Some freedoms come at too high a cost. The benefit of that freedom to me isn’t worth the cost of a child’s security and safety.

 

:iagree: We have not chosen anarchy, we have chosen a government. Some of the government for the people means the people have to keep watch out for one another and especially for our children. "The Government" as some soulless entity always puzzles me. It's made up of people, individuals. Individuals make mistakes, sometimes create dumb (or so we think) rules, but for the most part are not some evil Other. 

 

 

 

The standard is "progress commensurate with their ability". If the teacher you pick refuses to sign off you can try another one until you find one that does. But I've literally NEVER heard of that happening, ever. neither has anyone I know ever heard of it. Because the evaluators do this by choice and are pro homeschooling.

 

 

Neither have I. I ran an umbrella school for a number of years and dealt with people who had previously been registered with their county. Problems were rare. Many evaluators are teachers turned homescoolers who kept their teaching credentials active. Others are actively teaching in the classroom but are pro homeschooling. 

 

I've only heard a a few issues over the years. One was in the county north of me and those issues were always about parents removing their kids from ps in order to homeschool. Some school administrators in that county asked for proof of homeschooling, something they don't have a right to ask for.

 

One year in my county there was a new person in the homeschool liaison office who decided that all evaluations would be due by June 30th. It was pointed out to her that state law says otherwise and that local systems can't override state hs laws.

 

Often when local school systems overstep their authority it's because they don't understand the homeschool laws (again, school systems are made of people).  Sometimes the problems are a simple lack of understanding and once that's cleared up the problem disappears.

 

Reasonable homeschool oversight is not intrusion. It's protection for children. I'm good with that.

[kitten18]

So how can you do this honestly? I mean, if you have to cut off the CLE logo at the bottom of the page, isn't that to hide what you're really using?

 

I am sympathetic to the costs and difficulties of homeschooling that a public charter school can help with, but I hate hearing the tricks people use to break the rules, especially when it's done right under the kids' noses.

Well, I don’t do it at all. I use all secular materials.

But, it’s a sheet of math problems. I would have zero problem cutting that off and turning in the math problems.

 

Mom could write out a worksheet or the kids could write the problems on notebook paper.

 

The rules say you can use whatever you want to teach just that your work samples need to be secular.

I can’t see how that’s a problem.

 

ETA - it’s not hiding what you’re using and it’s not breaking any rules. It’s simply turning in a secular work sample.

Edited January 17, 2018 by kitten18

[HS Mom in NC]

It won't solve those that don't register. But then those will no longer be labeled as 'homeschoolers" and those who actually register and homeschool won't be tarnished by association. It helps clear the name of the those that aren't doing anything wrong, more than anything. 

 

I'd rather see "didn't have children enrolled in school" in these articles than "homeschooling". 

 

No it doesn't.  We already have that problem.  As in the case I mentioned upthread, the people pulled their kid from school, failed to register as homeschoolers, didn't actually homeschool, abused the child to death, and still it was called homeschooling because they claimed they were homeschooling her.  I had to explain multiple times on FB when people posted that it isn't actually homeschooling if you're not registered as a homeschooler.  It's also not homeschooling when you are registered but fail to actually homeschool in a developmentally appropriate way-that's fraud.  The public fails to grasp the differences and so does the media.  So once again,  what you are proposing doesn't actually solve anything in the real world.  It may be like psychotherapy to homeschoolers to be able to explain the differences, but in the mind of the public, politicians and the media, it's all a homeschooling problem.   

 

[KrissiK]

It makes me more nervous to be regulated and inspected by other homeschoolers than it does a government entity with some oversight. All it takes is one do-gooder with an agenda, and everyone has lots of problems. I've met some weird people in this homeschooling journey, and I'd really rather not be told by any of them how I should raise my kids.

I actually think the opposite. All it takes is one govt. hack who is against homeschooling and thinks that homeschooling = school at home to come into my house at 9:30 and see my kids still in their jammies eating Co-Co Puffs, even though they are doing math and write me up. Or wonder how we could possibly finish up school in a certain amount of time because if they were at "real" school, it takes 7 hours to do all the things.

[Katy]

You don't have to regulate homeschooling to address this.  It would help if we would change the constitution to give children rights.

 

If children had a right to live free of abuse that superseded the rights of mentally ill parents (who, from a legal standpoint, currently own their children), that could make a HUGE difference in the lives of many abused children. 

[KrissiK]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither have I. I ran an umbrella school for a number of years and dealt with people who had previously been registered with their county. Problems were rare. Many evaluators are teachers turned homescoolers who kept their teaching credentials active. Others are actively teaching in the classroom but are pro homeschooling. 

 

I've only heard a a few issues over the years. One was in the county north of me and those issues were always about parents removing their kids from ps in order to homeschool. Some school administrators in that county asked for proof of homeschooling, something they don't have a right to ask for.

 

One year in my county there was a new person in the homeschool liaison office who decided that all evaluations would be due by June 30th. It was pointed out to her that state law says otherwise and that local systems can't override state hs laws.

 

Often when local school systems overstep their authority it's because they don't understand the homeschool laws (again, school systems are made of people).  Sometimes the problems are a simple lack of understanding and once that's cleared up the problem disappears.

 

Reasonable homeschool oversight is not intrusion. It's protection for children. I'm good with that.

1.  It's different when people have a choice to put themselves in a charter or under an umbrella and that choice in effect checks the power of the charter or umbrella. If it is not a choice then the entity in power has all the power. I would be interested in knowing how many people who are very pro-regulation have actually had people come to their homes who had the power to make pretty big decisions for a family. It is very unnerving and scary to have someone come into your home and make life difficult for you just because they don't like what you are doing, and it may not be that you are doing anything wrong. They just don't like it.

 

2. Who gets to define "reasonable"?

Edited January 17, 2018 by KrissiK

[Lady Florida.]

1.  It's different when people have a choice to put themselves in a charter or under an umbrella and that choice in effect checks the power of the charter or umbrella. If it is not a choice then the entity in power has all the power.

 

2. Who gets to define "reasonable"?

 

1. In my state umbrella schools are less regulated than official homeschoolers. I'm against that too though I wasn't always. Running an umbrella school opened my eyes to things people do to try and defraud the state.

 

2. The people define reasonable, through laws. We all know that homeschooling was once illegal and is now legal in all U.S. states. It was homeschoolers who helped bring that about, and it should be homeschoolers who help define reasonable oversight. Government of the people works when the people get involved. 

[Rosie_0801]

You don't have to regulate homeschooling to address this.  It would help if we would change the constitution to give children rights.

 

If children had a right to live free of abuse that superseded the rights of mentally ill parents (who, from a legal standpoint, currently own their children), that could make a HUGE difference in the lives of many abused children. 

 

The trouble is, abuse is easy to hide and easy to invent. All the people crying they lost custody to their abusers would have had their parental rights terminated.

[Katy]

The trouble is, abuse is easy to hide and easy to invent. All the people crying they lost custody to their abusers would have had their parental rights terminated.

 

There would still need to be evidence, just not a 3 year duty to try and restore families where children continue to be harmed.

[KrissiK]

1. In my state umbrella schools are less regulated than official homeschoolers. I'm against that too though I wasn't always. Running an umbrella school opened my eyes to things people do to try and defraud the state.

 

2. The people define reasonable, through laws. We all know that homeschooling was once illegal and is now legal in all U.S. states. It was homeschoolers who helped bring that about, and it should be homeschoolers who help define reasonable oversight. Government of the people works when the people get involved. 

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with number two. I spent 10 year living within the confines of the Foster Care system and reasonable doesn't even enter into it. A foster parent cannot get a child's hair cut without the bio-parent's permission in this state (or maybe it's a county thing, but whatever, it's the law) and I cannot believe that "The People" had anything to do with that law. 

 

Regulating homeschooling is one thing if it's looked at it from a purely educational viewpoint. However, this thread was started because of a Child Welfare issue and if we are talking about regulating homeschooling as a means of Child Welfare... that's a whole different thing. Because then a govt. worker will do more than evaluate school work - they will be looking at the home, is there food? are the children clean? how clean? who defines the cleanliness of a home? Back in my Foster Care days one wack-job social worker didn't think I was keeping my house clean enough (it was messy - 5 kids here all day, but we had a housekeeping service at that time, so the house was basically clean) and she wrote me up and had the case worker drive 2 hours to check to see if my toilets were clean. Seriously. 

[Rosie_0801]

There would still need to be evidence, just not a 3 year duty to try and restore families where children continue to be harmed.

 

Evidence in the family means the opinions of people with the right qualifications who have met you for an hour or so, providing you and your abuser both paid half. Actual written evidence doesn't count if you can't make the powerful people look at it and even if they do, they have no obligation to believe it. As I said earlier, I was held accountable for future educational neglect. You can't prove future educational neglect with actual evidence. It hasn't happened yet!

[HS Mom in NC]

Can't quote - I agree that discussions about increased regs for hsers are probably moot in states with an opiod crisis. My state has this problem. The powers that be are actually considering building orphanages because there will never be as many foster families as are needed now, and even if we all turned altruistic and signed up, we wouldn't be ready in time for the massive numbers of children who need removed to care *every single day.* The numbers are staggering.

 

In border states the opioid crisis is only a part of the overwhelm.  We have thousands of illegals each year coming in who are straining the system.  These are people who need medical, housing, education, job training, and mental health services.  They haven't been paying into the system with taxes so people who do are paying for their own kids, foster kids, and illegal kids in addition to their parents.  Bio parents with kids in fostercare parents need a range of services depending on their particular situation: rehab, counseling, supervision, court dates, incarceration, subsidized housing, subsidized childcare, etc. 

 

Now people want to add to that an annual home visit by CPS (who would have the authority to judge a home situation as fit or unfit unlike the school system) and you're talking about 20,000 home visits in the state of AZ, divide by the number of weekdays in a year (about 261) and that means 77 home visits a day, every day, not counting holidays that state workers get off.  How many people will that take?  How much will their salaries cost?  What if the number of homeschoolers increases? 

 

The number of fosterkids is increasing.  The number of illegals is increasing.  (I say that matter of factly with no judgement as whether that's good or bad.) And how many refugees do you want the state to take in? They'll need services too. And what about the Native American population?  They have staggering rates of substance abuse and domestic abuse requiring kids to go into fostercare, but they can never be adopted outside the tribe, so the state has to pay for that. And people want to keep the stipend for fosterparents who do adopt the kids, so taxpayers have to cover that too. 

 

And the pension issue for government employees hasn't been dealt with yet but it's already bankrupting other cities.  How's that going to be dealt with?

 

We have a serious crisis in America where ever increasing numbers of people are no longer capable of caring for themselves, their children, and their aging parents.  They keep expecting the government to do it for them, but the government is already stretched too thin.  A friend of mine runs a placement agency for fostercare here.  She's had to go to court to fight CPS because CPS has known several of the children in fostercare through her agency were being abused by their fosterparents, yet the state wouldn't remove the kids because there aren't enough foster families to go around. All the time she spent fighting that she couldn't spend on other kids in the system.  The CPS social worker turn over rate is very high.  Now you want to demand that they monitor a small percentage of the school aged population (homeschoolers) to look for a small percentage of abusers when they don't have enough people to handle the kids they have.  That's not realistic.  How could it possibly happen?  You not only have to consider if something should be done, you have to address if it can actually be done and if doing it solves the problem. 

 

If you do pass legislation requiring home visits for homeschoolers  the crazy, evil, scumbag abusers will never register their kids as homeschoolers. My husband's uncle married a crazy woman with a daughter from a previous marriage.  That daughter grew up to marry an abuser and was herself, an abuser.  They had 6 or 7 kids that they abused, were reported, and CPS took the kids.  They went on to move, have several more kids under the radar who were never registered for school or homeschool.  They move around a lot according to the grandmother who says she doesn't know where they are.  There's no reason to think the second set is being treated any differently.

 

Resources are extremely limited here and are getting more limited. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

You don't have to regulate homeschooling to address this.  It would help if we would change the constitution to give children rights.

 

If children had a right to live free of abuse that superseded the rights of mentally ill parents (who, from a legal standpoint, currently own their children), that could make a HUGE difference in the lives of many abused children. 

 

But we already have laws on the books making child abuse illegal, which is the same things as recognizing their right to not be abused.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

And to be clear- My husband and I adopted from S. Korea, which has the highest standards for adoption in the world.  I know what it is to be under the microscope for 2 years and have every aspect of my life picked apart, checked, monitored and verified.  I deeply respect them for it and have a lot of contempt for the low standards America has for placing kids.  I'm not against regulation that works.  Regulation on the front end increases the likelihood of avoiding problems to begin with, if you have enough people to choose from.   It's back end regulations that are far less effective.

[LMD]

That's interesting. It doesn't seem too much different from having someone from CPS check in on you to make sure your kid is doing okay by their standards. And if their standards aren't met?

 

I'm not a "something is better than nothing" person by nature, simply because, in general, the authority given to the people doing something is usually pretty vast, even if it is not applied at the outset.

I agree with this. I've read the education act for my state, I know what powers the ed department has. They ain't welcome in my home. I follow the law, unless someone makes a credible complaint they have no cause to enter my house.

Or, like someone posted above, are we going to have 'the government' check up on every parent, just in case?

That's why I prefer encouragement to have the kids see and build a rapport with a mandatory reporter like a family gp.

 

As for the meeting standards part, well I think that the school standards are pretty pathetic. But if I lose the attitude, I would be okay with something like submitting a report card. Perhaps a phone call to discuss the educational philosophy with the parent - any conscientious home school parent has some idea of what they're trying to achieve.

[HS Mom in NC]

And if we're visiting homeschooler homes because their kids aren't in school with a mandated reporter 9 months out of the year are we going to send people into homes of kids who aren't school aged yet?  If the goal is to make sure children are safe, won't it need to be all children who aren't in school yet? If not, why not?  Are preschoolers less vulnerable to abuse if they're not school aged yet?  So the numbers jump even higher for who needs to be seen and how many resources (employees, buildings, salary packages, etc.)  the states will have to allocate for that.

[KungFuPanda]

Having someone outside the family lay eyes on a child once or twice a year is not a slippery slope to communism. The ‘rights’ of the parents should not outweigh the rights of children to have an education and future. Their rights should be valued and protected. Even if a shift in regulations only catches a handful of negligent families, it can protect dozens of kids and maybe even intervene before the family goes over the edge. We only hear the sensational horror stories . . . never the cases where people get help and their lives improve.

[pinkmint]

I came here to see what everyone was saying. Saw this story in the news and was disturbed. Maybe this couple started doing drugs? Anyway there's a lot of stuff that doesn't add up.

 

Hopefully more details will comes out.

 

I can see why people start worrying about their own homeschooling... it's hard not to take it personally when homeschooling has to be part of the headline involving total nutcases.

[Katy]

Evidence in the family means the opinions of people with the right qualifications who have met you for an hour or so, providing you and your abuser both paid half. Actual written evidence doesn't count if you can't make the powerful people look at it and even if they do, they have no obligation to believe it. As I said earlier, I was held accountable for future educational neglect. You can't prove future educational neglect with actual evidence. It hasn't happened yet!

 

I think this is a case of a different legal system having different rules.  I'm talking about children in the foster care system, not child custody cases.

 

But we already have laws on the books making child abuse illegal, which is the same things as recognizing their right to not be abused.

 

 

No, it is not the same thing because the state has the primary duty to restore the family due to the parents' constitutional right to be parents.  Everyone involved can know that the parents will ultimately fail, that this particular mother has previously lost 6 kids and this child will be no different, but kids are sent back and yanked again because parents have literally YEARS to continue to screw up their children before parental rights are terminated.  If kids had rights that equaled the parents rights to parent, this wouldn't happen.  A judge would see that this person is a terrible parent in less than six months, rights would be terminated, and the child would be adopted. There would be stability and far less overload on the system.  It probably still wouldn't fix issues of ICWA or border states (or even states bordering border states), but it would fix that problem to a degree of probably 80%.

[ktgrok]

1. In my state umbrella schools are less regulated than official homeschoolers. I'm against that too though I wasn't always. Running an umbrella school opened my eyes to things people do to try and defraud the state.

 

2. The people define reasonable, through laws. We all know that homeschooling was once illegal and is now legal in all U.S. states. It was homeschoolers who helped bring that about, and it should be homeschoolers who help define reasonable oversight. Government of the people works when the people get involved. 

 

Exactly. I considered an umbrella school but honestly I keep waiting for that option to get shut down. It's zero oversight, and I want that paper trail from my yearly portfolio review behind me if anything ever comes up. 

 

And for the questions asked earlier, about what is the point if the portfolio always gets passed? I imagine that those not doing any schooling at all, not keeping any records, and having zero stuff to show for the year don't do one, and go underground or use one of the umbrella schools mentioned above...basically they enroll in a sketchy private school. However, even those require a yearly physical I believe. So again, at least once a year a mandatory reporter is seeing the kid and making sure they are alive and not in a chest freezer in the basement or something. That's probably the only thing keeping those from being done away with. I still think they will, eventually, do away with them. 

 

For actual homeschooling, registered with the county,the kid will have to interact with another human at some point, and the parent will have to show they did some kind of learning during the year. 

[Ausmumof3]

In border states the opioid crisis is only a part of the overwhelm. We have thousands of illegals each year coming in who are straining the system. These are people who need medical, housing, education, job training, and mental health services. They haven't been paying into the system with taxes so people who do are paying for their own kids, foster kids, and illegal kids in addition to their parents. Bio parents with kids in fostercare parents need a range of services depending on their particular situation: rehab, counseling, supervision, court dates, incarceration, subsidized housing, subsidized childcare, etc.

 

Now people want to add to that an annual home visit by CPS (who would have the authority to judge a home situation as fit or unfit unlike the school system) and you're talking about 20,000 home visits in the state of AZ, divide by the number of weekdays in a year (about 261) and that means 77 home visits a day, every day, not counting holidays that state workers get off. How many people will that take? How much will their salaries cost? What if the number of homeschoolers increases?

 

The number of fosterkids is increasing. The number of illegals is increasing. (I say that matter of factly with no judgement as whether that's good or bad.) And how many refugees do you want the state to take in? They'll need services too. And what about the Native American population? They have staggering rates of substance abuse and domestic abuse requiring kids to go into fostercare, but they can never be adopted outside the tribe, so the state has to pay for that. And people want to keep the stipend for fosterparents who do adopt the kids, so taxpayers have to cover that too.

 

And the pension issue for government employees hasn't been dealt with yet but it's already bankrupting other cities. How's that going to be dealt with?

 

We have a serious crisis in America where ever increasing numbers of people are no longer capable of caring for themselves, their children, and their aging parents. They keep expecting the government to do it for them, but the government is already stretched too thin. A friend of mine runs a placement agency for fostercare here. She's had to go to court to fight CPS because CPS has known several of the children in fostercare through her agency were being abused by their fosterparents, yet the state wouldn't remove the kids because there aren't enough foster families to go around. All the time she spent fighting that she couldn't spend on other kids in the system. The CPS social worker turn over rate is very high. Now you want to demand that they monitor a small percentage of the school aged population (homeschoolers) to look for a small percentage of abusers when they don't have enough people to handle the kids they have. That's not realistic. How could it possibly happen? You not only have to consider if something should be done, you have to address if it can actually be done and if doing it solves the problem.

 

If you do pass legislation requiring home visits for homeschoolers the crazy, evil, scumbag abusers will never register their kids as homeschoolers. My husband's uncle married a crazy woman with a daughter from a previous marriage. That daughter grew up to marry an abuser and was herself, an abuser. They had 6 or 7 kids that they abused, were reported, and CPS took the kids. They went on to move, have several more kids under the radar who were never registered for school or homeschool. They move around a lot according to the grandmother who says she doesn't know where they are. There's no reason to think the second set is being treated any differently.

 

Resources are extremely limited here and are getting more limited.

 

Home visits where I am are not conducted by CPS but by and employee of the ed department. They are meant to be about reviewing the educational program but add an extra layer of protection.

 

Not only that but they have even discovered people registering students who didn't exist to claim government benefits apparently.

 

I guess it doesn't have to be a home visit. It definitely shouldn't be an inspection of fridges etc etc. I just think someone somewhere should actually see the kids.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think this is a case of a different legal system having different rules.  I'm talking about children in the foster care system, not child custody cases.

 

 

No, it is not the same thing because the state has the primary duty to restore the family due to the parents' constitutional right to be parents.  Everyone involved can know that the parents will ultimately fail, that this particular mother has previously lost 6 kids and this child will be no different, but kids are sent back and yanked again because parents have literally YEARS to continue to screw up their children before parental rights are terminated.  If kids had rights that equaled the parents rights to parent, this wouldn't happen.  A judge would see that this person is a terrible parent in less than six months, rights would be terminated, and the child would be adopted. There would be stability and far less overload on the system.  It probably still wouldn't fix issues of ICWA or border states (or even states bordering border states), but it would fix that problem to a degree of probably 80%.

What do you mean the child will be adopted?  Do you not have a shortage of fostadopt families in your state?

 

We do have time limits here for young children to have parental rights severed, but the volume slows things down. It's getting easier for parental rights to be terminated, but you seem to not be very familiar with a system like ours.  There's all the time spent finding and certifying any extended family willing to take the child (a legal requirement that has to be exhausted before foster families are eligible to adopt)  and there's still a shortage of fostadopt families. Very often children are taken out of the home at the request of the foster family because a huge percentage of foster kids don't do well with other kids in the house, but people who already have kids are usually people who become foster families.  We have confidentiality laws that have been limiting the amount of information foster families see about a child before agreeing to placement.  So they're often going in blind and then figure out it's not a good match and have the child removed.  It's a hard reality fosterkids commonly have to deal with. So again, it's not as simple as people removed from situation imagine it to be.

[umsami]

:iagree:   Regarding a totalitarian system, such as communism, I spoke with a 40-something mother yesterday who grew up in communist China. Just one example of state control was for university students. They are not allowed to fraternize with the opposite sex. There was a physical bed check every night in the dorm. If you weren't in your bed, you were kicked out. 

 

The state controlled people's actions and ideas about sexual involvement. Once this was in place, it's easier to control the number of babies you are allowed to have. It used to be 1 baby, but it's been upped to 2 so that there were more younger people to support their aging population. 

 

 

How many freedoms are we willing to give up so that the few people with major problems might be found quicker? And when will the government's intrusion start to make and majority of "normal people" get completely fed up and need to get away?

 

I'm surprised you find this surprising.  This was the norm in US colleges up until the 60s.  Single sex dorms.  Bed checks.  No gentleman above the first floor, etc.

[wintermom]

I'm surprised you find this surprising.  This was the norm in US colleges up until the 60s.  Single sex dorms.  Bed checks.  No gentleman above the first floor, etc.

 

 

But this is simply one aspect of daily life that was controlled by the state in her country at that time. Everything was controlled and monitored. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by wintermom

[goldberry]

the current owners of two of their previous homes have stated what they were like when they moved into them.

one was purchased as a foreclosure.  it was evident closets were used as cages.  the insides of the doors had scratches - the buyers thought they were made by animals, but are now rethinking.   they did take pictures of what the house was like when they got it.  (they would have had to do a lot to make it livable.)

the carpets were encrusted with dirt and filth.

that would have been several children ago.

this family has been living like this for years.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

[rose]

the current owners of two of their previous homes have stated what they were like when they moved into them.

one was purchased as a foreclosure.  it was evident closets were used as cages.  the insides of the doors had scratches - the buyers thought they were made by animals, but are now rethinking.   they did take pictures of what the house was like when they got it.  (they would have had to do a lot to make it livable.)

the carpets were encrusted with dirt and filth.

that would have been several children ago.

this family has been living like this for years.

:(

[goldberry]

What do you mean the child will be adopted?  Do you not have a shortage of fostadopt families in your state?

 

We do have time limits here for young children to have parental rights severed, but the volume slows things down. 

 

We have time limits in our state also, to try to address this.  Children under 6 are on an Expedited Permanency Plan, which means that if within one year of them being removed there is not evidence it is safe for them to go back, parental rights are supposed to be terminated. Children over 6 are supposed to be resolved to permanency within 18 months.  

 

But if there is no one to adopt or foster, the time limit is a moot point. Especially older kids will almost always age out of the system, which has terrible outcomes for most.  Those kids are lucky to even get a foster home, and often end up in group homes with deeply troubled other youths.

 

Our rural county in particular has severe foster family shortage, which often results in kids having to change schools because there is no foster family locally.  That further complicates visitation with family and siblings.  It's bad.

 

(corrected 5 to 6)

Edited January 18, 2018 by goldberry

[Katy]

What do you mean the child will be adopted?  Do you not have a shortage of fostadopt families in your state?

 

We do have time limits here for young children to have parental rights severed, but the volume slows things down. It's getting easier for parental rights to be terminated, but you seem to not be very familiar with a system like ours.  There's all the time spent finding and certifying any extended family willing to take the child (a legal requirement that has to be exhausted before foster families are eligible to adopt)  and there's still a shortage of fostadopt families. Very often children are taken out of the home at the request of the foster family because a huge percentage of foster kids don't do well with other kids in the house, but people who already have kids are usually people who become foster families.  We have confidentiality laws that have been limiting the amount of information foster families see about a child before agreeing to placement.  So they're often going in blind and then figure out it's not a good match and have the child removed.  It's a hard reality fosterkids commonly have to deal with. So again, it's not as simple as people removed from situation imagine it to be.

 

 

We are a foster-adopt family.  I've personally had multiple children in my home where the social workers involved had already been involved for more than two years and who thought that for the children in question it would be at least another two years before rights were terminated, and they would probably be sent back home to be abused again multiple times in the mean time due to the nature of the mothers mental illness. So while I understand that this might not be the primary issue in states like Arizona, or even Oklahoma (where we used to live), it is an issue in multiple states.  And if you ask why, the lawyers, social workers, and judges involved cite the constitutional right to parent and their duty to try to reunite families - even when everyone involved will openly acknowledge that reunification will never be in the best interest of the child due to the parent's refusal to stay in treatment for mental health issues.  We're in a state where you're allowed to ask to see the full file if the child has been in care for more than 60 days, and we're still usually lied to about important details.  It's never "as simple as" because different states have different situations.  But in the cases of those children who are continuously sent back to their parents from when their abuse was first discovered as a toddler, and the parents rights not being terminated until they are 8 or older, there is NO DOUBT that if they had the right to not be subjected to abuse, or the right to a stable permanency plan their lives would be better, with less generational abuse, mental health issues, or addictions of their own.  There is also no doubt that it is much easier to find stable adoptive homes for 3 year olds than for 8 year olds, or that it's much easier to treat attachment issues in infants and toddlers than it is in tweens.

[Corraleno]

the current owners of two of their previous homes have stated what they were like when they moved into them.

one was purchased as a foreclosure.  it was evident closets were used as cages.  the insides of the doors had scratches - the buyers thought they were made by animals, but are now rethinking.   they did take pictures of what the house was like when they got it.  (they would have had to do a lot to make it livable.)

the carpets were encrusted with dirt and filth.

that would have been several children ago.

this family has been living like this for years.

The photos are horrific. Knowing that those kids were living in such filthy conditions for years, while the father bought himself new cars every year and the mother was arranging all these Disney trips and weird Elvis vow renewals, posting photos of the kids all cleaned up and dressed alike as if they were the perfect family, is just so sinister and creepy.  :ack2:

[IfIOnly]

Well, I don’t do it at all. I use all secular materials.

But, it’s a sheet of math problems. I would have zero problem cutting that off and turning in the math problems.

 

Mom could write out a worksheet or the kids could write the problems on notebook paper.

 

The rules say you can use whatever you want to teach just that your work samples need to be secular.

I can’t see how that’s a problem.

 

ETA - it’s not hiding what you’re using and it’s not breaking any rules. It’s simply turning in a secular work sample.

Here in Oregon the work samples can be religious: it's just the charter won't pay for religous curriculum, and it will be out of pocket.

 

I think it's extreme that work samples can't be submitted if religious in nature and have never heard of it before this thread.

Edited January 18, 2018 by IfIOnly

[EmseB]

The point is the kids are seen by a mandatory reporter who will hopefully notice if all of the kids seem malnourished and small.

 

That has nothing to do with homeschooling, though, as an academic portfolio check.  If that's what the state wants, they should do that instead of dressing it up as a meaningless portfolio check where you can shop around to whomever you want to sign off on your academic progress that they have no teeth to actually measure anyway. Tell homeschoolers they want the kids seen annually by a mandatory reporter instead of wasting my time and their resources to pretend like it's about academics.

 

And in any case, in my state, the portfolio review is a review of the portfolio. The kids don't even have to be there.

[Ausmumof3]

That has nothing to do with homeschooling, though, as an academic portfolio check. If that's what the state wants, they should do that instead of dressing it up as a meaningless portfolio check where you can shop around to whomever you want to sign off on your academic progress that they have no teeth to actually measure anyway. Tell homeschoolers they want the kids seen annually by a mandatory reporter instead of wasting my time and their resources to pretend like it's about academics.

 

And in any case, in my state, the portfolio review is a review of the portfolio. The kids don't even have to be there.

I think ... Gently said... Ideally all visits are a waste of time. Ideally every visit goes smoothly and every family doesn't have any issues. For all of those who love and educate our kids the visits are pointless. For the 1 in 200 or less kids who are in a severely abusive situation it might make all the difference in the world.

 

It's like having speed checks. For 99 out of 100 cars that goes past it's a waste of time but for the 1 in 100 that are speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, talking on a phone or driving unlicensed you might save someone's life.

 

Most regulation is a filter in a way. Most people flow through it smoothly, a few need a bit of extra help and some major issues get picked up.

 

Also as a separate issue I have seen a few home schooling families who want to homeschool well and set out with good intentions but one day runs into another and nothing happens. Knowing they have to put together some kind of presentation about the kids learning can sometimes be the gentle push they need to get back on track.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Ausmumof3