California/Texas abuse victims trickling down into homeschooling families

[Rosie_0801]

My decision to homeschool doesn't put my children "at higher risk of abuse and neglect". 

 

It gave mine a lower risk.

[Innisfree]

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.

 

I don't actually have strong feelings on the question of whether regulations and oversight need to be stronger; there are good arguments on both sides, and passions are understandably high.

 

Like Sadie, I'd like to see some significant amount of actual data, preferably multiple studies over time.

 

But I think your second paragraph above actually reverses cause and effect. Homeschooling does not increase the chance of abuse. Abusers, though, are perhaps more likely to (claim to) homeschool. Isolation suits them nicely.

 

Regarding the question of how much education these particular children got, all I've seen so far is that some could read and write, and they apparently memorized Biblical passages. So, who knows. But I'd bet that control and isolation were more central to what happened than a concern with academics. That's why I identify them as abusers, not homeschoolers.

[Crimson Wife]

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. 

 

I could get behind #2 and possibly #3 if the same requirements were applied to ALL parents, regardless of where they school their children. ALL children should receive a physical exam annually IMHO by a physician or nurse practitioner. Though as mentioned earlier, funding needs to be made available so that those families who don't have insurance coverage for well-child exams can get one free.

 

#3 is a bit more intrusive, but I guess I could support it IF applied universally rather than singly out any one subgroup of parents.

 

[Crimson Wife]

 

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.

 

Well, I guess my 3rd child would fail. Can't read yet, can't write independently, doesn't have a clue what a president is much less who the current one is. Looks a lot younger than she is.

 

Funny thing is, she's the one of my kids who attends a B&M school and she sees "mandated reporters" on a daily basis after schools (various therapists and doctors).

 

I sure WISH that the cure for her health and learning issues were as simple as sticking her in a classroom.

 

[HomeAgain]

Mentally ill people abuse their children.  The most logical solution would be a push for better mental health care and more continual care, but alas, the U.S. is less likely to invest in that.

 

However, I have to ask, if constant mass shootings don't end in more regulations for gun owners, why are homeschoolers afraid that more regulations will be put on them because of bad apples who aren't even educating?  And don't get me wrong - I'm for educational oversight, but not as a fear based reaction to potential abuse and a way to legitimize illegal searches.  I'm for it because all schools should have to have focus and be able to prove that they are educating in a manner consistent with their philosophies.

[prairiewindmomma]

All of these rules suggest that one is willing to work within the system.

 

Let's say I move into a new state or have home birthed my children. Who knows that I have them?  If I haven't registered them with the state (with regards to homeschooling), they aren't in the system at all.  It would take someone reporting abuse in order to be brought into the system, which is the same problem we circle back around to.  Whether you are in the system as registered homeschoolers are not, the fundamental problem is abusers who abuse and they are stopped by someone who recognizes that and reports and a system that addresses the abuse.

 

Would more contacts with society increase the likelihood of abuse being reported? Probably....but those who are seriously abusing and have the desire to hide it (like the Turpins, who were planning to leave Dodge) aren't going to be caught in the system by registering as homeschoolers.

[snowbeltmom]

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.

According to the statistics cited in the Washington Post article, the majority of abused kids are NOT homeschooled. Why should homeschooling be outlawed when the public school system isn't able to prevent these situations either?

 

We would all like to find a way to prevent child abuse. More regulations or outlawing homeschooling are not the answers.

[MinivanMom]

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.

 

This. 

 

I'm sick of seeing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy every time an abusive or neglectful homeschooling story hits the news. Yes, they were homeschoolers. All of these abusive and neglectful homeschoolers are really homeschoolers. 

 

And these stories do affect the reputation of all homeschoolers. And I think they will eventually have an impact on homeschool laws. 

[MinivanMom]

There will always be people who try to skirt the law, but that doesn't mean that we stop making laws to protect the innocent. It doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say, "Well, let's stop trying". 

 

Homeschooling is a privilege. We don't have a constitutional right to homeschool. At one time homeschooling was against the law. Now it is legal in every state, but it could easily swing back the other direction if abusive families continue to use homeschooling as a cover for abuse. 

[Meriwether]

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.

Actually, HS does *not* increase *my* kids' risk of abuse.

[Meriwether]

It gave mine a lower risk.

This.

[HomeAgain]

There will always be people who try to skirt the law, but that doesn't mean that we stop making laws to protect the innocent. It doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say, "Well, let's stop trying". 

 

Homeschooling is a privilege. We don't have a constitutional right to homeschool. At one time homeschooling was against the law. Now it is legal in every state, but it could easily swing back the other direction if abusive families continue to use homeschooling as a cover for abuse. 

 

No, wait. Wut?

 

Homeschooling isn't a privilege anymore than birthing children is.  Yeah, the U.S. stripped people of that right for a while, too, forcibly sterilizing people through the 1970s. Further,  I find it revolting that a right is portrayed as a privilege because a nation thinks it can take it away.  We have a messy history of this and it's not a road that would be kind to walk down again. Homeschooling was never truly illegal.  It was obscured as public education was written as a right and compulsory attendance became law, but never was there a thing written making home education illegal.  The current laws clarified the issue when challenged on their positions.

 

 

The best way to stop a problem is at the source.  You know what happens when abused people get help?  They don't go on to abuse others.  You know what happens when mental health is taken care of?  People don't abuse others.  Increasing medical access for the nation would result in less abuse cases.  More cycles would be broken.  It would cost less over time and increase everyone's well being.  Too many of our issues in our country stem from the simple fact that we willfully refuse to meet the needs of society.

[Crimson Wife]

I'm absolutely for improving access to quality mental health care, but I don't think that is going to do all that much to reduce child abuse. Mentally ill parents would have to WANT to get help and unfortunately, many people with mental illnesses are in denial and refuse to seek help or comply with ongoing treatment once they've seen a clinician.

 

My dad had a cousin with schizophrenia who went years in a cycle of not wanting to take his medication, deteriorating to the point where the family could get a judge to decree he was a danger to himself or others, forcibly put into the hospital for the maximum 72 hours, improving with medication so he was released, and then stopping his meds. Lather, rinse, repeat. Very sad but he didn't want to get help and the family couldn't legally make him do so.

[Ausmumof3]

I should be clear I don't think homeschooling increases the risk of abuse in families that are choosing to homeschool.

 

But I am not happy for my legitimate and good educational method to be used as a screen for abusers who want to hide the abuse. I am willing to jump through some hoops to prevent that happening.

[3 ladybugs]

To me any oversight (other then what is already in place in several states) that is above and beyond such as home visits is a waste of money. What are you going to do? Tell the Smith family that you will be at their house on May 3 at 10 am? Yeah you know what will happen even in the evil household that that those poor children in California? They would pull it together and everything would look fine. 

 

Surprise inspections would be the only way to deal with any of this. And even then that to me would subject us to potential "unlawful search" that we can't have due to the constitution. I say this because they would only be there to make sure I wasn't abusing my kids. You would have to hire more people that actually deal with abused kids to go and check out these homes. Yeah there is a spot where they are flush in cash and have the time and resources for this.  :glare:

 

To me the media needs to stop calling these people "homeschoolers" and call them what they are really "non-schoolers"

[Lang Syne Boardie]

3 ladybugs, even HSLDA has confirmed that they were homeschoolers.

 

They were homeschoolers who tortured their children.

[Ausmumof3]

I guess the question is, does it prevent that ?

 

I know people who don't register, have never had their kids at school, don't collect FTB etc in order to stay under the radar. I can jump through many more hoops, but they are still not going to come to the attention of authorities.

I guess that's hard to know.

 

For me I like the registration process. It makes it easier when concerned people ask questions to be able to say "yes it's legal, yes a person from the education department checks what we're doing, yes we meet the Australian curriculum requirements". It's a protection for us against harassment for homeschooling more than a protection for kids from abuse. Also it provides a degree of separation between dedicated legal homeschoolers and abusers who homeschool to fly under the radar.

 

So I guess I see regulation as more of a protection for us than a threat.

[HeartString]

Isn't there a point of diminishing returns? If x regulations catches 95% of abuse and y regulation catches 3 more, at what point are we willing to say good enough? If we acknowledge that we can never TRULEY regulate it to zero, how far are we willing to go?

If one home visit a year still lets sime kids be abused, do we go to monthly? Then another family figures out how to get around even that?

 

Edit to add-I'm pro some regulations. But we can't out regulate people determined to abuse at this level.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Cnew02

[Ausmumof3]

Well, I do too. I am registered :)

 

But it seems odd if we think that if all the people who think registration is a good thing, register, that will cut down on torture of children.

 

You just end up giving pro registration families more and more oversight, while not really addressing the issue of non-registration at all.

 

ETA in NSW at least, FACS had to concede to Parliament that there is no particular correlaton between abuse and homeschooling - lots of malicious reports though.

Yeah true. I mean I am happy with our regs here as they are I think they do the job reasonably well. I don't think there's a need for increase. Seems like it's different in a lot of US states though.

[kiwik]

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.

Which is why in NZ your child has to stay at school until the permission to homeschool process is complete. And before people get upset it is easy enough to get round if your child is unsafe. The lady at the ministry said they didn't follow kids up unless they were absent for 20 consecutive days or you can get a doctor's note.

[Sandwalker]

No.

 

I will not subject myself to having to "prove" my innocence to anyone, especially given that it is unwarranted. The basis of this country lies in the fact that we *ARE* assumed to be innocent, and the burden of proof lies on the government to prove we are guilty.

This. We have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government works for us, and they have no right to dictate how I educate my offspring. (Mine are grown now, but Get Off of My Lawn, Government.) When you, the "authorities", learn how to properly educate children (and adults in university), you can give me some suggestions. Till then, buzz off with your failing methods.

[Sandwalker]

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.

Annual home inspection?!? What country am I living in?

[kiwik]

I'm absolutely for improving access to quality mental health care, but I don't think that is going to do all that much to reduce child abuse. Mentally ill parents would have to WANT to get help and unfortunately, many people with mental illnesses are in denial and refuse to seek help or comply with ongoing treatment once they've seen a clinician.

 

My dad had a cousin with schizophrenia who went years in a cycle of not wanting to take his medication, deteriorating to the point where the family could get a judge to decree he was a danger to himself or others, forcibly put into the hospital for the maximum 72 hours, improving with medication so he was released, and then stopping his meds. Lather, rinse, repeat. Very sad but he didn't want to get help and the family couldn't legally make him do so.

Not wanting to take meds and get help is part of the illness not a deliberate act.

[kiwik]

To me any oversight (other then what is already in place in several states) that is above and beyond such as home visits is a waste of money. What are you going to do? Tell the Smith family that you will be at their house on May 3 at 10 am? Yeah you know what will happen even in the evil household that that those poor children in California? They would pull it together and everything would look fine.

 

Surprise inspections would be the only way to deal with any of this. And even then that to me would subject us to potential "unlawful search" that we can't have due to the constitution. I say this because they would only be there to make sure I wasn't abusing my kids. You would have to hire more people that actually deal with abused kids to go and check out these homes. Yeah there is a spot where they are flush in cash and have the time and resources for this. :glare:

 

To me the media needs to stop calling these people "homeschoolers" and call them what they are really "non-schoolers"

It sounds like they had jumped through all the hoops to be called homeschoolers. Maybe the hoops were too easy to jump through.

[ikslo]

It sounds like they had jumped through all the hoops to be called homeschoolers. Maybe the hoops were too easy to jump through.

Or maybe no amount of hoops would have prevented this particular case.

[historically accurate]

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. 

 

I live in a low (read: no) reg state, and I really wouldn't mind jumping through some hoops. I could do it; it'd be a pain, but if needed.  Number 1 & Number 2 would be fine to me; I disagree with #3. Home inspections - in America? I can't get behind that. Do I think it would stop people like the Turpins who flat-out horribly abuse their kids for decades? No. It might stop people who are lagging behind in some areas, those who are borderline. 

 

I'm not running a business such as a daycare, so no.

 

I could get behind #2 and possibly #3 if the same requirements were applied to ALL parents, regardless of where they school their children. ALL children should receive a physical exam annually IMHO by a physician or nurse practitioner. Though as mentioned earlier, funding needs to be made available so that those families who don't have insurance coverage for well-child exams can get one free.

 

#3 is a bit more intrusive, but I guess I could support it IF applied universally rather than singly out any one subgroup of parents.

 

 

I actually took my kids annually to their doctor in part to make sure that I had records that they all were seen by professionals. I have one who took speech therapy for years, but the others weren't always there. Well, their doctor retired and his replacement said he didn't want to see them except every three years since they were healthy. Since I haven't found a replacement yet for their doctor's replacement and amazingly they haven't been sick enough to go to the doctor, they haven't been in about 2 years.

[Carrie12345]

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.

 

That's an interesting conclusion, given that homeschooling isn't allowed in Sweden.

[Guinevere]

Or maybe no amount of hoops would have prevented this particular case.

I'm mostly against more hoops, but I wonder if requiring parents to show continuity of education/registration could help. It's as easy as moving to a new school district to completely disappear. Or what if each registered homeschooler were checked to see if the child was registered again for homeschooling, or enrolled in a school in a different area.

[EMS83]

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.

 

The logical outworking of granting truth to this sentence is that any given parent is more likely to abuse and neglect their child if their child is homeschooled versus public or private schooled.  As in, if I pull my own kids out of school in order to homeschool them, I am immediately and automatically more likely to personally abuse and/or neglect them than before I pulled them out.  Maybe you meant it puts them in the higher risk category, and that's true enough.  And maybe homeschooling exacerbates the situation of an at-risk family, but it doesn't alter the risk of any given family; they were already at risk or they weren't.  We need to be careful with how we understand and use statistics and data.    :(

 

ETA: I apologize if this point was already made; I don't intend to harp.

Edited January 19, 2018 by CES2005

[ikslo]

I'm mostly against more hoops, but I wonder if requiring parents to show continuity of education/registration could help. It's as easy as moving to a new school district to completely disappear. Or what if each registered homeschooler were checked to see if the child was registered again for homeschooling, or enrolled in a school in a different area.

PA already has this requirement for moving within PA. But there are no requirements when moving out of state for the school districts to communicate with each other. States have varying levels of oversight, and they would have to cooperate with each other. Think databases. I think many homeschoolers might take issue with that.

[Carrie12345]

Isn't there a point of diminishing returns? If x regulations catches 95% of abuse and y regulation catches 3 more, at what point are we willing to say good enough? If we acknowledge that we can never TRULEY regulate it to zero, how far are we willing to go?

If one home visit a year still lets sime kids be abused, do we go to monthly? Then another family figures out how to get around even that?

 

Edit to add-I'm pro some regulations. But we can't out regulate people determined to abuse at this level.

 

This is the sad point that I don't want to accept, and I don't think anyone else really wants to, either.  But it's reality.

 

Would they have been caught sooner with stronger regulations?  Maybe they would have, considering the extent of the abuse.  Maybe they wouldn't have, considering the lengths they were willing to go to to hide it.  But I don't believe for one second that there's any potential regulation that would have prevented them from abusing their children.

 

They didn't live in a secluded location.  They didn't keep at least one long-abused child from an academic environment.  They didn't fully remove evidence from at least one former residence.  They didn't actually avoid suspicion.  It's just that no one ever did anything about it.

 

Which brings us back to the whole, "When is it appropriate to do something" thing.  We're afraid of putting innocent families through the wringer.  We're afraid of authorities mucking things up.  We know both of those things are legitimate concerns. We also know that the right call can save lives.  And then we try to hedge our bets.  

 

I want to believe that there's a better way.  I KNOW there isn't a perfect way.  But any way is going to inconvenience some people. 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Carrie12345

[eternalsummer]

Annual home inspection?!? What country am I living in?

 

Thank you!  Would it even be constitutional I ask you?

[eternalsummer]

That's an interesting conclusion, given that homeschooling isn't allowed in Sweden.

 

Sweden isn't doing annual home inspections of all kids from birth to age 5, either, though.

 

ETA: Actually I'm just guessing; maybe they are!

Edited January 19, 2018 by eternalsummer

[merry gardens]

Homeschooling or not, being a parent today seems to automatically make one a suspect of child abuse in the eyes of some. Instead of “innocent until proven guiltyâ€, some people assume guilt until innocence is proven. Parents should not need to give home tours to government officials or otherwise defend themselves against charges of abuse or neglect unless there is “Just Causeâ€. And to be clear-- “Just Cause†doesn’t mean “just ‘cause they have children.â€

 

I live in a state with higher homeschool regulations than most, but I don’t see how such regulations realistically catch or deter abuse. Regulations relating to homeschooling should relate to education. California may very well want to re-think their homeschool laws, but no law or policy should treat all parent as child-abuse suspects. 

 

​I have thought a lot about this family since their story hit the news and as more details come into the light. It is indeed very troubling. I am simply flabbergasted about it. I understand why some people want to do something to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. Yet, the couple was arrested--THEY are the suspects, THEY are the ones who have been charged with numerous crimes against their own children. The rest of us are not the suspects here. The rest of us should not have to act like we are the ones who have been charged with abuse and neglect. 

[mom2scouts]

Does anyone remember the case in Ohio where a boy was terribly abused by his mom's boyfriend or new husband? The school reported its suspicions and the boy was taken out of the school and put in a public online charter. He was later beat to death. There was lots of talk about homeschooling and a senator proposed a law that would require all homeschooled students to have a visit from CPS once a year. The homeschooling community was furious and HSLDA called it "the worst law ever" with good reason. First of all, CPS can barely keep up with checking in on kids they know are actually at risk. Second, the boy was in a *public* online school which, in Ohio, is legally not even considered to be homeschooling. The law being proposed to prevent this kind of abuse would not have applied to the family at all since he was considered a public school student! It would target every homeschool family as potential abusers without even addressing the case it was built upon. Laws based on a single case are rarely well thought out.

[DesertBlossom]

This.

 

I'm sick of seeing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy every time an abusive or neglectful homeschooling story hits the news. Yes, they were homeschoolers. All of these abusive and neglectful homeschoolers are really homeschoolers.

 

They weren't homeschoolers because they viewed homeschool as the best way to meet their children's educational needs. They were "homeschoolers" because that was the easiest way to hide the abuse.

[Ellie]

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.

 

I completely disagree. I don't need to earn my freedom to teach my children at home.

 

My children are not at a "higher risk of abuse and neglect" because I made the decision to teach them at home. Goodness. I would resist any such legislation with every fiber of my being.

[Crimson Wife]

Not wanting to take meds and get help is part of the illness not a deliberate act.

My point was that having better mental health care available will only help those people who want the help. It will do nothing for all the mentally ill people who are in denial about their need for treatment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ktgrok]

According to the statistics cited in the Washington Post article, the majority of abused kids are NOT homeschooled. Why should homeschooling be outlawed when the public school system isn't able to prevent these situations either?

 

We would all like to find a way to prevent child abuse. More regulations or outlawing homeschooling are not the answers.

 

A very slight majority are not homeschooled. But 47% being homeschooled, when fewer than 4% of kids are homeschooled, is a HUGE overrepresentation. 

 

In other words, although the sheer number of kids being abused says more are public/private schooled than homeschooled, the percentage of homeschoolers abusing is higher, way higher, than the percentage of public school parents abusing. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by ktgrok

[freesia]

A very slight majority are not homeschooled. But 47% being homeschooled, when fewer than 4% of kids are homeschooled, is a HUGE overrepresentation. 

 

In other words, although the sheer number of kids being abused says more are public/private schooled than homeschooled, the percentage of homeschoolers abusing is higher, way higher, than the percentage of public school parents abusing. 

However, there were only 38 children involved in the study, which is really just a snapshot, and many homeschoolers have bigger than average families.  I would need to see the family size and more information.  How many families were involved?

 

This type of abuse has been happening forever, in all types of communities.  Before the kids were just truant, now the parents can say they are homeschooling.  But, the neighbors didn't even know there were so many kids in that house.  Before the severely abused kids were completely hidden so no one would know they were truant.  Now, in a way, homeschooling actually makes them more visable.

 

But I'm in the camp of knowing folks from my generation who were abused at home and in school every day.  I also agree that a lot of severe abuse happens to kids younger than 5.

 

I'm in the camp who thinks that we need better mental health support.

 

 

[Sandwalker]

There will always be people who try to skirt the law, but that doesn't mean that we stop making laws to protect the innocent. It doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say, "Well, let's stop trying".

 

Homeschooling is a privilege. We don't have a constitutional right to homeschool. At one time homeschooling was against the law. Now it is legal in every state, but it could easily swing back the other direction if abusive families continue to use homeschooling as a cover for abuse.

I disagree. Nothing in the Constitution mandates that I send my children to a b&m school. It does, however, give me the right to privacy from nosy governmental agencies.

[LMD]

I completely disagree. I don't need to earn my freedom to teach my children at home.

 

My children are not at a "higher risk of abuse and neglect" because I made the decision to teach them at home. Goodness. I would resist any such legislation with every fiber of my being.

Well said. The government needs to earn it's right to deprive me of my freedom.

[LMD]

A very slight majority are not homeschooled. But 47% being homeschooled, when fewer than 4% of kids are homeschooled, is a HUGE overrepresentation.

 

In other words, although the sheer number of kids being abused says more are public/private schooled than homeschooled, the percentage of homeschoolers abusing is higher, way higher, than the percentage of public school parents abusing.

Hang on Katie, that 47% was based on one study which looked at 28 cases of child torture. You can't say that 47% of all abused kids are homeschooled, that's not what the statistic shows.

[scoutingmom]

 

 

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 parental decision to homeschool my kids does NOT put them at a greater risk of being abused unless you are saying that the act of homeschool somehow makes it more likely that I would abuse my kids. Homeschooling doesn't cause abuse.

 

Yes some abusers choose to hide the abuse by homeschooling the kids.... and the risk of those kids being abused is the same because thd parents are the same. There might be a higher risk of it not being noticed, but even that seems to be not a lot higher.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Jean in Newcastle]

In the past, these abusers would have been charged with truancy in addition to the crimes of torture, abuse etc. But in zero reg states all many have to do is to claim that they were homeschooling and there is nothing anyone can say to dispute that claim. (I realize that doesn’t apply to this family who did comply with registering as homeschoolers, if I have my facts straight. ).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carrie12345]

In the past, these abusers would have been charged with truancy in addition to the crimes of torture, abuse etc. But in zero reg states all many have to do is to claim that they were homeschooling and there is nothing anyone can say to dispute that claim. (I realize that doesn’t apply to this family who did comply with registering as homeschoolers, if I have my facts straight. ).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's not entirely true, or at least not in every non-reg state.  In NJ, you absolutely can be disputed, but the burden of proof is on the state.  I think I've read that it's similar in Texas.