California/Texas abuse victims trickling down into homeschooling families

[HollyAGarza]

Please delete if not allowed.

 

To say this case of the parents who were chaining, neglecting, torturing and allegedly homeschooling their children is bothering me is an understatement.

I'm convinced the depravity of the things that will surface will continuously get worse. I've never seen torture charges or 12 million dollar bail for any defendant!

Aside from being angry, saddened and concerned for their offspring I can only speculate as to what this will mean for us as homeschoolers. There is already chatter online and in the community as to it being "Homeschooling's" fault. Many are alleging (could even be somewhat valid considering how long this has been ongoing....) that this went on became worse because they were "hidden" away in a "fake" school.

I guess aside from venting and looking for opinions I'm just a bit slightly concerned as to how this will trickle down to us and our rights as homeschoolers.

Ideas...thoughts....?

 

https://www.facebook.com/WGNTV/videos/10155227765297411/?notif_id=1516302600837961&notif_t=live_video_invite_taken

 

 

[kiana]

This happens every time something appalling happens in a homeschooling family; I doubt it will have any lasting effect, but you will probably have a lot of people arguing with you for some time. 

[HollyAGarza]

That's very true. I'm trying to stay under the radar and not post much about education/learning outside of the forums and groups specified for these purposes

[lauraw4321]

I think if statistics show that there is more severe abuse in "HS" families than in those that don't HS, then HS families should be subject to more scrutiny. Because I care more about kids having the right to grow up and meet their full potential than I care about parents' right to autonomy and privacy.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think if statistics show that there is more severe abuse in "HS" families than in those that don't HS, then HS families should be subject to more scrutiny. Because I care more about kids having the right to grow up and meet their full potential than I care about parents' right to autonomy and privacy.

 

That's fair, but I'd place money on that not being the case.

[lauraw4321]

That's fair, but I'd place money on that not being the case.

 

There were statistics quoted in the WaPo article I linked to in the thread about the 13 siblings that showed a very disproportionate link between "HS" and abuse. 

 

And honestly, it makes logical sense. If you want to chain your kids up and not feed them for years, are you going to send them to school every day? Of course not. And there's a perfectly legal way to avoid that, with minimal or no government intrusion. Why WOULDN'T you "HS" your kids in that case?

[Crimson Wife]

Given how much parental freedoms have already been curtailed in recent years by well-meaning but overly intrusive bureaucrats out here in CA, I'm very concerned that the legislature will use this tragedy as a reason to add a lot of "red tape" for Private School Affidavit families. :(

 

Only my oldest is under the PSA right now and she is close to finished with the high school graduation requirements (by the end of this semester she'll only have 1 semester physical science and 1 more semester foreign language left before she can graduate). So by the time any new legislation would come into effect, I could probably just go ahead and graduate her. I wasn't planning on doing so until she's ready to transfer from the CC, but if the state starts asking me to jump through hoops, I'd be inclined to issue the diploma and say she's a college student rather than DE.

[Crimson Wife]

There were statistics quoted in the WaPo article I linked to in the thread about the 13 siblings that showed a very disproportionate link between "HS" and abuse. 

 

And honestly, it makes logical sense. If you want to chain your kids up and not feed them for years, are you going to send them to school every day? Of course not. And there's a perfectly legal way to avoid that, with minimal or no government intrusion. Why WOULDN'T you "HS" your kids in that case?

 

Most, but not all, of the tragedies have been in families where the parent(s) pulled the child or children from PS after the family was already involved with CPS. Absolutely that is a HUGE "red flag" to my mind, and while I am not willing to say that the government should completely prevent families involved with CPS from HSing, those families should be very closely monitored. That would go a long way towards preventing these kinds of tragedies without unfairly burdening ALL homeschooling families.

[lauraw4321]

Most, but not all, of the tragedies have been in families where the parent(s) pulled the child or children from PS after the family was already involved with CPS. Absolutely that is a HUGE "red flag" to my mind, and while I am not willing to say that the government should completely prevent families involved with CPS from HSing, those families should be very closely monitored. That would go a long way towards preventing these kinds of tragedies without unfairly burdening ALL homeschooling families.

 

I think that if legitimate HSers aren't willing to fill out some paperwork, meet with some folks from some bureaucracy, and keep some records in exchange for the freedom to teach their children at home however they want, then they need to really stop and do some self-examination. 

 

By HS you are making a parental decision that puts your kid at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Should you be willing to jump through hoops to show that you aren't abusing the right to HS as a way to abuse and neglect your kids? Hell yes.

[Jean in Newcastle]

That's very true. I'm trying to stay under the radar and not post much about education/learning outside of the forums and groups specified for these purposes

 

If you are not neglecting your kids' health, emotional wellbeing, nutrition or education, there is not reason to be hiding. 

[Crimson Wife]

I think that if legitimate HSers aren't willing to fill out some paperwork, meet with some folks from some bureaucracy, and keep some records in exchange for the freedom to teach their children at home however they want, then they need to really stop and do some self-examination. 

 

By HS you are making a parental decision that puts your kid at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Should you be willing to jump through hoops to show that you aren't abusing the right to HS as a way to abuse and neglect your kids? Hell yes.

 

In CA, private homeschools have the exact same requirements as private B&M schools. Don't forget that those awful child-abusing FLDS folks did not HS but had their kids in their own private FLDS schools. So if CA wants to increase red tape on ALL private schools in the state (home-based and B&M alike), then I don't really have an objection to that.

 

Really if the legislature wants to require all schools in the state to have their students get a physical annually by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner, I don't care so long as they provide funding for low-income families to get it done free of charge. That's not singling out HSers for suspicion.

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Hi, Holly, welcome to the boards!

 

If you read about on the boards, you'll find this topic comes up quite often.

 

IMO, abusers abuse.  It doesn't matter what setting you're in.  Of the top of my head, I can name 12 different teachers who were caught abusing children (statutory rape) in my metro area in the past year.  Conflating homeschooling with abuse is a knee jerk response, and I think while the media sloppily does so, I think really looking at the details of the families involved would show that homeschooling does not lead to abuse. As to whether there is any effective oversight that can be provided to abusers who are trying to hide abuse under the guise of homeschooling, that's another ball of wax.

 

I think the *least helpful* thing that parents who homeschool can do would be to lie low, act afraid, and avoid contact with people in society.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

There were statistics quoted in the WaPo article I linked to in the thread about the 13 siblings that showed a very disproportionate link between "HS" and abuse. 

 

And honestly, it makes logical sense. If you want to chain your kids up and not feed them for years, are you going to send them to school every day? Of course not. And there's a perfectly legal way to avoid that, with minimal or no government intrusion. Why WOULDN'T you "HS" your kids in that case?

 

Is that really homeschooling though?  Or is that more like just not sending them to any school so they can abuse them?  Is that the fault of homeschooling or simply the result of crazy people who somehow flew under the radar.

 

KWIM?

 

[Innisfree]

If you are not neglecting your kids' health, emotional wellbeing, nutrition or education, there is not reason to be hiding.

 

Exactly. Be involved in the community, be open about homeschooling, talk about education and how vital it is to our kids. Be the face of responsible homeschooling.

 

People who starve and chain their children are not homeschoolers. They are abusers who claim to homeschool in order to maintain control over their children and separate them from society. Don't cede the image of homeschooling to them.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think that if legitimate HSers aren't willing to fill out some paperwork, meet with some folks from some bureaucracy, and keep some records in exchange for the freedom to teach their children at home however they want, then they need to really stop and do some self-examination. 

 

By HS you are making a parental decision that puts your kid at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Should you be willing to jump through hoops to show that you aren't abusing the right to HS as a way to abuse and neglect your kids? Hell yes.

 

What to you would be meaningful hoops while at the same time not treating people like criminals and as guilty?

[lauraw4321]

Kids do in fact have rights in this country. They have a right to be educated. They have a right to be free from abuse and neglect. I'll put kids rights to be free from abuse and neglect above a parents' rights to freedom every time. 

 

It has *nothing* to do with *proving* you are innocent. The presumption should be that you are educating your children, aren't abusing them, etc. If something is found in an inspection, that presumption would remain. 

 

Hoops:

 

1) Keep logs of what you did to educate your child. Include books and other resources. Present those records annually to someone. If you can't get it together to annually, then you shouldn't be educating your children at home.

 

2) Kid meets with a mandatory reporter at least annually. Be that a social worker, doctor, whomever. 

 

3) Annual home inspection. Again, if you can't get your house cleaned up once a year for someone to have a look around, you shouldn't be educating your kids at home.

 

ETA: You can't adopt a kid without meeting similar standards. You can't run a daycare without meeting similar standards. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by lauraw4321

[SparklyUnicorn]

Kids do in fact have rights in this country. They have a right to be educated. They have a right to be free from abuse and neglect. I'll put kids rights to be free from abuse and neglect above a parents' rights to freedom every time. 

 

It has *nothing* to do with *proving* you are innocent. The presumption should be that you are educating your children, aren't abusing them, etc. If something is found in an inspection, that presumption would remain. 

 

Hoops:

 

1) Keep logs of what you did to educate your child. Include books and other resources. Present those records annually to someone. If you can't get it together to annually, then you shouldn't be educating your children at home.

 

2) Kid meets with a mandatory reporter at least annually. Be that a social worker, doctor, whomever. 

 

3) Annual home inspection. Again, if you can't get your house cleaned up once a year for someone to have a look around, you shouldn't be educating your kids at home.

 

ETA: You can't adopt a kid without meeting similar standards. You can't run a daycare without meeting similar standards. 

 

So what would they be looking for?  Correct number of books?  That I don't have chains on the bed?  If I HAD to endure such scrutiny, it wouldn't be all that difficult to make it look good once a year. 

 

[lauraw4321]

So what would they be looking for?  Correct number of books?  That I don't have chains on the bed?  If I HAD to endure such scrutiny, it wouldn't be all that difficult to make it look good once a year. 

 

 

There would need to be clear guidelines (just like there are with adoptions, and with daycares). 

 

This isn't rocket science. I'd make sure they knew stuff like... their names. And ages. And maybe who the president was and where they lived. And could read and write and knew what scissors and toys were. And make sure that they didn't look like they were 10 when they were actually 17. 

 

And this family in particular apparently lived in such filth that there is no way in hell they could have cleaned it up for one day. 

 

Seriously, it's not rocket science. It's not even that hard, likely. Look at existing standards related to child safety (from daycares, schools, etc.) and educational standards applied to other settings, and apply them to homeschooling. 

 

And don't change the subject and say "what about people who just live under the radar." That's not the question here. The question is for people who openly claim to be HS. What should they be subject to.

[eternalsummer]

Kids do in fact have rights in this country. They have a right to be educated. They have a right to be free from abuse and neglect. I'll put kids rights to be free from abuse and neglect above a parents' rights to freedom every time. 

 

It has *nothing* to do with *proving* you are innocent. The presumption should be that you are educating your children, aren't abusing them, etc. If something is found in an inspection, that presumption would remain. 

 

Hoops:

 

1) Keep logs of what you did to educate your child. Include books and other resources. Present those records annually to someone. If you can't get it together to annually, then you shouldn't be educating your children at home.

 

2) Kid meets with a mandatory reporter at least annually. Be that a social worker, doctor, whomever. 

 

3) Annual home inspection. Again, if you can't get your house cleaned up once a year for someone to have a look around, you shouldn't be educating your kids at home.

 

ETA: You can't adopt a kid without meeting similar standards. You can't run a daycare without meeting similar standards. 

 

 

But you will also have to insist that all children from age birth to entering K, regardless of whether they homeschool after K, are subjected to annual home inspections.   Do you really think there's any political will (or that it fits with the nature of the country) to have the government annually inspect most homes in America? 

 

I find it hugely unlikely and, personally, kind of beyond the pale.  Sure, you can give up all of your liberty to a government entity in order to provide security, but that's not the founding ethos of this country, and even countries with stronger government control don't have annual home inspections for all families with kids.  Are you serious?  If Sweden's not doing it, we're not doing it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Kids do in fact have rights in this country. They have a right to be educated. They have a right to be free from abuse and neglect. I'll put kids rights to be free from abuse and neglect above a parents' rights to freedom every time. 

 

It has *nothing* to do with *proving* you are innocent. The presumption should be that you are educating your children, aren't abusing them, etc. If something is found in an inspection, that presumption would remain. 

 

Hoops:

 

1) Keep logs of what you did to educate your child. Include books and other resources. Present those records annually to someone. If you can't get it together to annually, then you shouldn't be educating your children at home.

 

2) Kid meets with a mandatory reporter at least annually. Be that a social worker, doctor, whomever. 

 

3) Annual home inspection. Again, if you can't get your house cleaned up once a year for someone to have a look around, you shouldn't be educating your kids at home.

 

ETA: You can't adopt a kid without meeting similar standards. You can't run a daycare without meeting similar standards. 

The issue in the case of the 13 abused "kids" (since not all of the were minors) in CA was not educational neglect.  Proving academics has zero to do with preventing what happened to them. 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

Is that really homeschooling though? Or is that more like just not sending them to any school so they can abuse them? Is that the fault of homeschooling or simply the result of crazy people who somehow flew under the radar.

 

KWIM?

 

I think in this case there must have been some homeschooling. Apparently the kids have kept journals which are now being read by authorities. The fact that they were able to write indicates that education was happening.

[lauraw4321]

I don't think what I propose is likely. I think outlawing HS entirely is much more likely. 

 

And the point would be to screen for both physical/emotional abuse and neglect as well as educational neglect. 

[TravelingChris]

There would need to be clear guidelines (just like there are with adoptions, and with daycares). 

 

This isn't rocket science. I'd make sure they knew stuff like... their names. And ages. And maybe who the president was and where they lived. And could read and write and knew what scissors and toys were. And make sure that they didn't look like they were 10 when they were actually 17. 

 

And this family in particular apparently lived in such filth that there is no way in hell they could have cleaned it up for one day. 

 

Seriously, it's not rocket science. It's not even that hard, likely. Look at existing standards related to child safety (from daycares, schools, etc.) and educational standards applied to other settings, and apply them to homeschooling. 

 

And don't change the subject and say "what about people who just live under the radar." That's not the question here. The question is for people who openly claim to be HS. What should they be subject to.

 

I thought you lived in AL - we do not have mandatory inspections of even most daycares in this state.

 

You also do not homeschool and have much less parenting and life experience than many of us posting here.  What you are suggesting not only stupid, because abusers would simply not register, but almost all non-abusers would find it highly intrusive and against fundamentals of our country.  You are suggesting stuff here that I have seen no one else suggest anywhere and make me think that you are simply anti-homeschooling and came on this board to promote your message.

[JudoMom]

There would need to be clear guidelines (just like there are with adoptions, and with daycares). 

 

This isn't rocket science. I'd make sure they knew stuff like... their names. And ages. And maybe who the president was and where they lived. And could read and write and knew what scissors and toys were. And make sure that they didn't look like they were 10 when they were actually 17. 

 

And this family in particular apparently lived in such filth that there is no way in hell they could have cleaned it up for one day. 

 

Seriously, it's not rocket science. It's not even that hard, likely. Look at existing standards related to child safety (from daycares, schools, etc.) and educational standards applied to other settings, and apply them to homeschooling. 

 

And don't change the subject and say "what about people who just live under the radar." That's not the question here. The question is for people who openly claim to be HS. What should they be subject to.

 

This is ridiculous.  The guidelines have worked so well in preventing all day care deaths, and foster care deaths, and adoption deaths.  And it's prevented all day care neglect and abuse, and foster care neglect and abuse, and adoption neglect and abuse.  To use your language, why the hell would you take one broken system and apply it somewhere else?

[lauraw4321]

I thought you lived in AL - we do not have mandatory inspections of even most daycares in this state.

 

You also do not homeschool and have much less parenting and life experience than many of us posting here.  What you are suggesting not only stupid, because abusers would simply not register, but almost all non-abusers would find it highly intrusive and against fundamentals of our country.  You are suggesting stuff here that I have seen no one else suggest anywhere and make me think that you are simply anti-homeschooling and came on this board to promote your message.

 

Ha, no.

 

I'm from AL and don't live there now. All licensed non-"church" affiliated daycares in AL ARE required to be inspected annually. And there's a big push to make that all daycares since kids have.. you know... DIED in the unregulated daycares. Hopefully the AL legislature will take it up again.

 

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/05/bill_to_require_inspections_of.html

 

You can call my ideas stupid, that's fine. But I'm not opposed to HS at all. 

[kiana]

If you are not neglecting your kids' health, emotional wellbeing, nutrition or education, there is not reason to be hiding. 

 

Well -- for me it's more not wanting to get into arguments of the "Someone is WRONG on the internet!" type. 

[lauraw4321]

This is ridiculous.  The guidelines have worked so well in preventing all day care deaths, and foster care deaths, and adoption deaths.  And it's prevented all day care neglect and abuse, and foster care neglect and abuse, and adoption neglect and abuse.  To use your language, why the hell would you take one broken system and apply it somewhere else?

 

You're never going to prevent every death or abuse. But in AL it is clear that licensed daycares have far lower rates of abuse and death than licensed ones.

 

The licensed ones are subject to regulations and annual inspections.

 

Regulations make a difference. Are you opposed to all government regulations? FDA? EPA? Or just the ones that might inconvenience you?

[SparklyUnicorn]

And don't change the subject and say "what about people who just live under the radar." That's not the question here. The question is for people who openly claim to be HS. What should they be subject to.

 

So wouldn't that encourage more people to live under the radar?  If they knew they'd be under a microscope?  Subject to searches, etc. 

[lauraw4321]

Here's an article:

 

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/children-in-unlicensed-day-cares-are-times-more-likely-to/article_e9d6588e-ff51-5b2f-a6a1-4a539c69dcce.html

 

"Children in unlicensed daycares are five times more likely to die"

 

But, regulations, smegulations, right??? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

So putting more regulation on those who follow the regulations will prevent those who fly under the radar from being abusive?

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

I thought you lived in AL - we do not have mandatory inspections of even most daycares in this state.

 

You also do not homeschool and have much less parenting and life experience than many of us posting here. What you are suggesting not only stupid, because abusers would simply not register, but almost all non-abusers would find it highly intrusive and against fundamentals of our country. You are suggesting stuff here that I have seen no one else suggest anywhere and make me think that you are simply anti-homeschooling and came on this board to promote your message.

No, this poster has been around the boards for a while.

[Jean in Newcastle]

One of the children went to college.  His mother went with him and stayed outside in the hall and then took him home.  Being in public, in an institution is not what freed him or got him the help he needed.  (This from a LA times article I read today.)

 

I live in a state which requires registration of homeschoolers and annual testing or portfolio review.  I am not against that level of oversight.  But I don't delude myself by telling myself that it keeps abusers of this level from abusing or neglecting kids. 

 

If there were to be requirements for annual doctor visits it should be for all children regardless of schooling method.  But while I took my kids for well child visits when they were young, my doctor told me that it was unnecessary for my older kids.  We go when they need medical care.  My doctor is a doctor - while he does give some parent education, he is not a social worker or a parent educator. 

 

 

[HeartString]

But you will also have to insist that all children from age birth to entering K, regardless of whether they homeschool after K, are subjected to annual home inspections. Do you really think there's any political will (or that it fits with the nature of the country) to have the government annually inspect most homes in America?

 

I find it hugely unlikely and, personally, kind of beyond the pale. Sure, you can give up all of your liberty to a government entity in order to provide security, but that's not the founding ethos of this country, and even countries with stronger government control don't have annual home inspections for all families with kids. Are you serious? If Sweden's not doing it, we're not doing it.

But then parents would just hide babies and toddlers. So really we need to be doing annual inspections of each and every home in the country, just in case. Security and all. If it saves just one child...

[JudoMom]

You're never going to prevent every death or abuse. But in AL it is clear that licensed daycares have far lower rates of abuse and death than licensed ones.

 

The licensed ones are subject to regulations and annual inspections.

 

Regulations make a difference. Are you opposed to all government regulations? FDA? EPA? Or just the ones that might inconvenience you?

 

I like your ad hominem attacks.  They really further your case and make you seem well reasoned.

 

And, yes, I'd guess I'm opposed to many more government regulations than you are, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Here's an article:

 

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/children-in-unlicensed-day-cares-are-times-more-likely-to/article_e9d6588e-ff51-5b2f-a6a1-4a539c69dcce.html

 

"Children in unlicensed daycares are five times more likely to die"

 

But, regulations, smegulations, right??? 

 

And this has relevance, why?  I'm not a day care.  I'm my children's home.  It's where they sleep, eat, and learn.  Guess what?  It's where children who school elsewhere eat, sleep, and learn.  You'd have to institute your policy and regulations to every single home where there are children.  This is not a home schooling issue, like it or not.  

 

 

[JudoMom]

So putting more regulation on those who follow the regulations will prevent those who fly under the radar from being abusive?

 

Tsk, tsk---we were told not to bring that little point up.  ;)

[Ausmumof3]

Nailed it.

These people

 

Followed regulations for their state

Kept their kids home from school

Educated them enough that they can write legibly.

 

That makes them homeschoolers unfortunately. Homeschoolers that abuse.

 

Just like parents with kids in school that abuse are public school families that abuse.

 

We can't define anyone we don't like as "not being a homeschoolers". It's a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy I think (?).

 

Unfortunately, like it or not these were homeschoolers. They weren't even public schoolers that pulled their kids to cover abuse.

[lauraw4321]

If they went underground, they wouldn't be homeschoolers. And you and I and everyone else who wants to homeschool our kids and not abuse them would be free to do so.

 

Editing to add this: When your grandkids aren't legally allowed to homeschool, this will be why. Because it was too easy to abuse. And I'm clearly not welcome or wanted on this board, so this will be my last post and I'll stop bothering all of you.

Edited January 18, 2018 by lauraw4321

[SparklyUnicorn]

If they went underground, they wouldn't be homeschoolers. And you and I and everyone else who wants to homeschool our kids and not abuse them would be free to do so.

 

So you want homeschoolers to be scrutinized because you want to make sure you look good as a homeschooler?

 

I guess my only real objection is who protects us from people who are dead against homeschooling?  Who will go out of their way to find some problem and accuse us of stuff? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

If they went underground, they wouldn't be homeschoolers. And you and I and everyone else who wants to homeschool our kids and not abuse them would be free to do so.

 

We are still free to homeschool our kids and not abuse them.  They broke the rules.  They were caught.  That's why you know about it.  They are being held accountable. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

We are still free to homeschool our kids and not abuse them.  They broke the rules.  They were caught.  That's why you know about it.  They are being held accountable. 

 

Yeah and this is a very extreme situation.  Some of their children were adults weren't they?  So they would not have been under the scrutiny of anyone at that point.

 

With that number of kids it would seem that someone would really have to go out of their way to do something like that.  So if they can pull that off, they can fake home visits and paperwork.

[Ausmumof3]

Yeah and this is a very extreme situation. Some of their children were adults weren't they? So they would not have been under the scrutiny of anyone at that point.

 

With that number of kids it would seem that someone would really have to go out of their way to do something like that. So if they can pull that off, they can fake home visits and paperwork.

Yeah given the Disney visits they might have been able to fake stuff. Although those stains on the carpet in the house they left would be hard to hide...

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah given the Disney visits they might have been able to fake stuff. Although those stains on the carpet in the house they left would be hard to hide...

 

Well it's like the stories we hear of public school teachers molesting children or locking them in closets.  I don't assume that most public school teachers would ever do either of these things. 

 

Well you'd be more careful.  You'd get floors that were easier to wash.  I don't have a particularly devious mind, but even I could come up with that.  KWIM?

 

I have no problem with anyone checking out my homeschooling, but geesh I don't want to be picked apart either. 

[Greta]

But you will also have to insist that all children from age birth to entering K, regardless of whether they homeschool after K, are subjected to annual home inspections.

Wait, why would you “have to� Current homeschooling regulations don’t apply to preschool aged children, so why would additional homeschool regulations have to apply to them?

[eternalsummer]

Wait, why would you “have to� Current homeschooling regulations don’t apply to preschool aged children, so why would additional homeschool regulations have to apply to them?

 

Because the proposal she was making wasn't anything to do with education, it was to make sure that children who aren't in a public school aren't being abused in non-education-related ways (that is, an annual home inspection).  Why, if you want an annual home inspection of kids who aren't in school, to make sure they're alive and well cared for, would you only want one for kids who are 5 and older?  That makes no sense; you'd think younger kids would be even more vulnerable to abuse.

[scholastica]

Kids do in fact have rights in this country. They have a right to be educated. They have a right to be free from abuse and neglect. I'll put kids rights to be free from abuse and neglect above a parents' rights to freedom every time. 

 

It has *nothing* to do with *proving* you are innocent. The presumption should be that you are educating your children, aren't abusing them, etc. If something is found in an inspection, that presumption would remain. 

 

Hoops:

 

1) Keep logs of what you did to educate your child. Include books and other resources. Present those records annually to someone. If you can't get it together to annually, then you shouldn't be educating your children at home.

 

2) Kid meets with a mandatory reporter at least annually. Be that a social worker, doctor, whomever. 

 

3) Annual home inspection. Again, if you can't get your house cleaned up once a year for someone to have a look around, you shouldn't be educating your kids at home.

 

ETA: You can't adopt a kid without meeting similar standards. You can't run a daycare without meeting similar standards. 

 

Why don't we make all people who want to be parents do that before they have kids and continue doing it, regardless of schooling choices? This is a parenting issue, not a homeschooling issue. By your logic, all parents should be checked out every year.  And I'm not running a daycare. I'm raising a family. 

[Greta]

Because the proposal she was making wasn't anything to do with education, it was to make sure that children who aren't in a public school aren't being abused in non-education-related ways (that is, an annual home inspection).  Why, if you want an annual home inspection of kids who aren't in school, to make sure they're alive and well cared for, would you only want one for kids who are 5 and older?  That makes no sense; you'd think younger kids would be even more vulnerable to abuse.

 

 

Ah, okay.  I thought the question at hand was more specifically about how we can find abusers among the homeschooling community, and whether homeschooling regulations should be changed to try to address that problem.  The question of how to prevent/find abuse involving preschool children is a separate one, at least to my mind.  But apparently it was not a separate question in this discussion and I just misunderstood.  Sorry about that, and please carry on!  

[LMD]

There were statistics quoted in the WaPo article I linked to in the thread about the 13 siblings that showed a very disproportionate link between "HS" and abuse.

 

And honestly, it makes logical sense. If you want to chain your kids up and not feed them for years, are you going to send them to school every day? Of course not. And there's a perfectly legal way to avoid that, with minimal or no government intrusion. Why WOULDN'T you "HS" your kids in that case?

The statistics were one study of 28 torturing, abusive families. 47% of those 28 families pulled to homeschool. 29% were just never allowed to go to school.

By my calculations around a 5th were still in school and still fell through the cracks.

Edited January 18, 2018 by LMD

[Rosie_0801]

So what would they be looking for?  Correct number of books?  That I don't have chains on the bed?  If I HAD to endure such scrutiny, it wouldn't be all that difficult to make it look good once a year. 

 

 

I haven't had that, but we've been punished for not having the correct products within view. 

[mom2scouts]

That's very true. I'm trying to stay under the radar and not post much about education/learning outside of the forums and groups specified for these purposes

 

I'm doing exactly the opposite of this. I do NOT want to stay under the radar. I want people to see that homeschooled kids can be healthy, happy, and well educated. I post pictures of our homeschooling on Facebook and let people know about our outside activities. I want people to know that my homeschooled teen has been chosen for a leadership role in a community group, that he's doing a project at the local zoo, that he is active in church groups and hobby clubs. I want people to see that dd does a competitive sport, has overnighters with friends, and has a normal childhood. My neighbor is a mandated reporter who works with children's issues. She is in and out of lots of public schools in our area and told me that she frequently hears snide comments about homeschooling. She said she always tells them that her neighbor homeschools and does it right and that my children are well educated, polite, and able to hold a conversation with her and others.

 

I think that if legitimate HSers aren't willing to fill out some paperwork, meet with some folks from some bureaucracy, and keep some records in exchange for the freedom to teach their children at home however they want, then they need to really stop and do some self-examination. 

 

By HS you are making a parental decision that puts your kid at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Should you be willing to jump through hoops to show that you aren't abusing the right to HS as a way to abuse and neglect your kids? Hell yes.

 

My decision to homeschool doesn't put my children "at higher risk of abuse and neglect". The thing that finally gave me the courage to homeschool was the abuse my child (and his classmates) was getting every day from a public school teacher. The school knew, the other teachers knew, some of the parents knew, but nobody put a stop to it. When my previously happy child came home from school every day and had meltdowns, started wetting his pants daily, and developed tics and OCD symptoms from stress, I don't think I'm obligated to jump through hoops to prove anything.

[Rosie_0801]

Why don't we make all people who want to be parents do that before they have kids and continue doing it, regardless of schooling choices? This is a parenting issue, not a homeschooling issue. By your logic, all parents should be checked out every year.  And I'm not running a daycare. I'm raising a family. 

 

By people who are experts in education, child development and medicine, who both know you well enough to correctly interpret patterns of behaviour and also don't know you at all to avoid bias.