Homeschool impostors' rights -- what do you think?

[Snickerdoodle]

I think the right and access to an education is something very different to compulsory school attendance.

 

I wonder what exactly constitutes "an education"?

[Murphy101]

To the bolded: this happens ALL THE TIME!!! When we enforce truancy laws against schools that house kids without teaching them how to read and write, ....pigs might fly...:tongue_smilie: This line of thinking assumes that ps's actually teach, or "provide access" to an education.

 

You are asking HSers to be held to an ideal that the ps system doesn't maintain itself. I don't see how forcing children into a ps system where learning is lacking is better than allowing the children to remain in a loving home where learning is lacking. ...better of 2 evils kind of thing'.

 

This is so true. And for all the hype about schools teaching, when kids come home with 3+ hours of homework that the parents are expected to help with, I question who is really doing the teaching. It's no wonder that many parents decide after not seeing their kid for 8+ hours five days a week, that extending school into the what little family time they have is not their biggest priority. I've met more than one parent who has been very honest that they send their kids to school for a reason and they expect the school to educate the kids. They want no part of it. Some of these people pay big bucks to send their kids to private school and say they don't pay that kind of money to have to teach the kid themselves for hours at home. Though this approach to learning is alien to me bc I like to learn, I can understand their POV. And really given all the teachers who claim only a professional in a brick school house can do it, it's no wonder that so many parents feel they should have no part in it other than enrollment.

[Laura Corin]

I don't have a problem with parents choosing to do that so long as they also leave their children a trust fund such that taxpayers won't have to support them as adults.

 

 

 

Laura

[regentrude]

I wonder what exactly constitutes "an education"?

 

At the very minimum, education should be the amount of knowledge that enables the person to support herself through some kind of work and to manage daily life, without having to be a burden on society.

Daily life would include being able to read, balance their finances, paying their taxes, making informed choices before they vote, taking care of their health.

 

I aim for higher and find it sad if people have little education- but they can choose what they want to do.

I do not, however, want the taxpayer having to support people because of the educational choices they and their parents made.

What happens to the girls, whose parents think they don't need any of this because they marry, if they are widowed and have to support them selves?

[regentrude]

So, why is it assumed that schooling must be done in the early years of life?

 

Because at that stage in their lives they are fed and housed by their parents, have no children to take care of and do not need to hold a job.

 

I see older students who return to college later in their life struggling big time - they are often more motivated, but need to work a lot harder to succeed in the university than the 20 year olds. Particularly if at the same time they have to be working to support a family.

[Murphy101]

At the very minimum, education should be the amount of knowledge that enables the person to support herself through some kind of work and to manage daily life, without having to be a burden on society.

Daily life would include being able to read, balance their finances, paying their taxes, making informed choices before they vote, taking care of their health.

 

:lol: good luck with that given that most adults cannot do that. They are in debt up to their neck, either don't vote at all or make no effort to be informed about their vote and often lack even basic biology information about their own body.

 

Yet they seem to get through daily life.

 

I aim for higher and find it sad if people have little education- but they can

choose what they want to do.

I do not, however, want the taxpayer having to support people because of the educational choices they and their parents made.

What happens to the girls, whose parents think they don't need any of this

because they marry, if they are widowed and have to support them selves?

 

I suppose I can understand that POV. It would have more credit if we didn't have govt subsidies out the wazoo and social security.

 

As for what happens to those girls..

If that is a cultural normative, usually the family helps them tremendously. For example, in the pp case of the Spanish speaking family, I would be very surprised if the girl did not either move back home or have relatives move in with her to help should something happen to her husband. In fact, regardless of her education or income, it would surprise me if that was not what happened. The concept of living on your own and being financially alone as being the defining element of independence, intelligence, and maturity is not a universally accepted in all cultures.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Martha
Drafted spelling

[Photo Ninja]

After reading this thread, it appears that, in general, the issue can be simplified to state that many believe that families should be able to make a choice for their dc, no matter what that choice is (because even the ps system turns out graduates or drop outs who have very low level of education), as long as it doesn't require others to pay for that choice.

 

So then it seems that the bigger issue is that of government provided aid and 'safety net' programs paid for through the government taking money away from those who are supporting themselves.

 

It seems the link here is forcing those who pay taxes to support those who make choices (lack of education being one) that lead to people being unemployable or employable, but not able to earn enough money to support a family.

 

Is the solution to force people to live with their decisions by removing government aid? Choose not to take advantage of the educational opportunities provided, but live with the reality that you won't get government money to live on. Then those who pay taxes will get to keep more of the money they earn, and those who make poor decisions will live with the outcomes, and perhaps more people will take responsibility for their decisions, educational and otherwise. (I know I am making a generalization here because not all people who need government aid have neglected their education.) But in light of a majority of the comments, it seems that the drawback to allowing people a choice to educate (or not) rests in others in society being forced to financially support them, and forcing education (if it can actually be forced, which does not appear to be true because forcing a student to sit in a class does not equal education) seems to be the current solution because if people are educated,they are less likely to need tax-funded government aid.

 

So would removing the government 'safety net' change anyone's mind about allowing people to make a choice on how to educate their children and the level of education that should be attained? It seems like a lot of societal issues, ranging from education (being discussed here) to health care/ healthy lifestyles and illegal immigration can also be traced back to a philosophy of 'you can make your own choices, but since the rest of society has to pay the price, there will be limits to your freedom of choice'.

 

I am just wondering.

[Murphy101]

I didn't agree with the as long as I don't have to pay for their screw up theory, mostly because I don't agree that people ARE paying for it.

 

At best, the funding going into public schooling might be break-even to whatever social support would be given to the noneducated I guess.

 

Besides, I don't see the logic in saying welfare A is acceptable (public schools, farm subsidies, corporate tax incentives) but welfare B (food stamps, unemployment...) has a stigma bc supposedly mostly the uneducated or moochers use it.

 

And I think people lie when they say they want everyone off the dole. Can you imagine how much burger at mcd would cost if the burger flapper made a fully sustainable living wage? Or the daycare worker? Or hair stylist? Or taxi driver?:001_huh: I betting it would raise every one else's cost of living way beyond what we pay in taxes.

 

So yeah, let's remove the supposed safety net of govt schools. Because the vast majority of those getting any form of govt tax payer funded aid were public schooled.

[Heidi]

After reading this thread, it appears that, in general, the issue can be simplified to state that many believe that families should be able to make a choice for their dc, no matter what that choice is (because even the ps system turns out graduates or drop outs who have very low level of education), as long as it doesn't require others to pay for that choice.

 

So then it seems that the bigger issue is that of government provided aid and 'safety net' programs paid for through the government taking money away from those who are supporting themselves.

 

It seems the link here is forcing those who pay taxes to support those who make choices (lack of education being one) that lead to people being unemployable or employable, but not able to earn enough money to support a family.

 

Is the solution to force people to live with their decisions by removing government aid? Choose not to take advantage of the educational opportunities provided, but live with the reality that you won't get government money to live on. Then those who pay taxes will get to keep more of the money they earn, and those who make poor decisions will live with the outcomes, and perhaps more people will take responsibility for their decisions, educational and otherwise. (I know I am making a generalization here because not all people who need government aid have neglected their education.) But in light of a majority of the comments, it seems that the drawback to allowing people a choice to educate (or not) rests in others in society being forced to financially support them, and forcing education (if it can actually be forced, which does not appear to be true because forcing a student to sit in a class does not equal education) seems to be the current solution because if people are educated,they are less likely to need tax-funded government aid.

 

So would removing the government 'safety net' change anyone's mind about allowing people to make a choice on how to educate their children and the level of education that should be attained? It seems like a lot of societal issues, ranging from education (being discussed here) to health care/ healthy lifestyles and illegal immigration can also be traced back to a philosophy of 'you can make your own choices, but since the rest of society has to pay the price, there will be limits to your freedom of choice'.

 

I am just wondering.

 

Yup! :D That's how I lean.

 

If you say: every child has the right to an education. You can also say: every child has a right to..... two married parents, a drug-free home, one acre of land to roam on, $300 in a savings account (did this ever get passed?), a college degree, and on and on and on.

 

Fact is, these aren't rights. Life, liberty, and property are our rights.

 

"Government aid" is a great idea except, like you said, it gives them the right to have a say in our lives; and where do you draw the line? Yes, there is a need for financial aid to those that are less fortunate, however, that aid need not come from the government. It just screws everything up, in addition to taking away our actual rights.

 

How about we use voluntary charity to take care of those that need it, and use natural law take care of those that don't?

[regentrude]

 

So yeah, let's remove the supposed safety net of govt schools. Because the vast majority of those getting any form of govt tax payer funded aid were public schooled.

 

The majority of hard working, tax paying productive citizens was publicly schooled as well.:)

 

Not everybody is able to homeschool. There is a lot wrong with schools, and there are a lot of good things happening in schools and many millions of students do receive a pretty good education.

[Murphy101]

The majority of hard working, tax paying productive citizens was publicly schooled as well.:)

 

Yep.:). Yet no one says we should outlaw private schools unless they emulate public schools in what qualifies as acceptable to educate.

 

Not everybody is able to homeschool. There is a lot wrong with schools, and there are a lot of good things happening in schools and many millions of students do receive a pretty good education.

 

I don't suggest that everyone home school.

No govt schools should not mean no education.

Children were educated for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years, without govt schools.

Community/cottage schools, tutors, guilds, churches and many other options were used to educate.

I think these would flourish again if govt schools came to an end.

[Sweetbeebie]

I think the government needs to stay out of everyone personal choices. Not every child is going to grow up, go to college and get a great job. Making a child or family send their children to public school is not any guarantee that they will even keep a job at McDonald. The children who detest school and are forced to go become everyone else's problem at the school. My daughter was in public school last yr and there was a boy who already didn't like school(3rd grade). He spent his days being disruptive and rude to the teacher. Some days he was throwing books other days chairs.

[hornblower]

It seems the link here is forcing those who pay taxes to support those who make choices (lack of education being one) that lead to people being unemployable or employable, but not able to earn enough money to support a family.

 

In a similar vein, sometimes people make choices regarding having lots of children & end up unable to earn enough money to support a family of such a large size. What do folks suggest we do about that?

 

Seems to me the vast majority of people are regular, hard working, independent types. There always was & I suspect always will be a small minority of drifters, lazy layabouts, con men types who expect something for nothing. I don't think education laws have had any effect on the existence of that group of folks.....

[msjones]

The majority of hard working, tax paying productive citizens was publicly schooled as well.:)

 

There is a lot wrong with schools, and there are a lot of good things happening in schools and many millions of students do receive a pretty good education.

 

:iagree:

 

There is (understandably) a lot of energy about crummy public school situations. I think it's helpful to remember that lots of kids do okay in public schools even while others have terrible experiences.

[msjones]

So many interesting responses.

 

I'm a little surprised at how many folks believe that schooling should be required by law. I tend to think of homeschoolers as preferring little government interference in their personal lives.

 

I'm surprised that quite a few folks consider it abuse to not provide a certain level/type of education for one's children. I still wonder what level/type of education would meet a national minimum requirement.

 

I would have guessed that (on a homeschooling message board) there would be more reluctance to allow that level of government control in citizens' lives.

[Audrey]

.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Audrey
duplicate post, sorry

[Audrey]

I didn't agree with the as long as I don't have to pay for their screw up theory, mostly because I don't agree that people ARE paying for it.

 

At best, the funding going into public schooling might be break-even to whatever social support would be given to the noneducated I guess.

 

Besides, I don't see the logic in saying welfare A is acceptable (public schools, farm subsidies, corporate tax incentives) but welfare B (food stamps, unemployment...) has a stigma bc supposedly mostly the uneducated or moochers use it.

 

And I think people lie when they say they want everyone off the dole. Can you imagine how much burger at mcd would cost if the burger flapper made a fully sustainable living wage? Or the daycare worker? Or hair stylist? Or taxi driver? I betting it would raise every one else's cost of living way beyond what we pay in taxes.

 

So yeah, let's remove the supposed safety net of govt schools. Because the vast majority of those getting any form of govt tax payer funded aid were public schooled.

 

:hurray: :thumbup: :hurray: :thumbup: :hurray: :thumbup: :hurray: :thumbup:

 

 

I would like to put one of those for every. Single. Word. Of. Your. Post.

 

But apparently I'm limited to 8.

[Murphy101]

Ahh. Shucks.:blush:

[Crimson Wife]

At best, the funding going into public schooling might be break-even to whatever social support would be given to the noneducated I guess.

 

Baloney. It costs the state of CA $45,000 per year to incarcerate each prisoner. It costs the state $14,437 per year for each individual on Medi-Cal (CA version of Medicaid). It costs the state $1650 per year for each individual receiving food stamps. And on, and on, and on.

 

We've got a 10% sales tax and an income tax that is among the highest in the nation. And that's just at the state level without even looking at all the taxes we have to pay to the Feds. Frankly, I'm sick of having so much of my family's hard-earned money go to subsidize the poor choices of others.

 

I don't care how students get the skills they need to be productive members of society, but I do care very much that they get them.

[kalanamak]

 

If unschooling is "abuse" then I posit that graduating incompetents from public schools is "abuse" in equal measure.

 

I still consider this non-schooling by parents, often by presenting a poor role model.

 

Sending a child to school does not mean you get to wash your hands of their education.

[Alphabetika]

Many of them are well-worshipped celebrities and elected officials! :tongue_smilie:

 

We were better off as a culture w/o compulsory state controlled education in the United States. I believe there should be NO laws in this area, and we would have fewer problems than we do now...it wouldn't be perfect but it would be better.

 

I also do not believe education is a right...we throw that word around too much and it embodies a sense of entitlement.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Murphy101]

Baloney. It costs the state of CA $45,000 per year to incarcerate each prisoner. It costs the state $14,437 per year for each individual on Medi-Cal (CA version of Medicaid). It costs the state $1650 per year for each individual receiving food stamps. And on, and on, and on.

 

We've got a 10% sales tax and an income tax that is among the highest in the nation. And that's just at the state level without even looking at all the taxes we have to pay to the Feds. Frankly, I'm sick of having so much of my family's hard-earned money go to subsidize the poor choices of others.

 

I don't care how students get the skills they need to be productive members of society, but I do care very much that they get them.

 

 

Baloney is right. I'm so tired of everything wrong in society being blamed on education and income. Criminals commit

crimes bc they are arses. I've never once heard of a criminal who stole a tv because he just didn't understand math. Or he murdered someone bc he just didn't have quality literature at home. What bs. The only thing that would change with education and money is their chances of getting off lighter are probably higher.

 

 

Even if skills can make someone a productive member of society, the sad truth is skills do not necessarily pay a living wage.

[In2why]

One thought that I had while reading. To some people not teaching evolution is akin to neglect of a child's education, and limits their choices for careers in Science. Deciding what should be taught is a slippery slope and judging others values in what or how they teach is even slipperier.

[at the beach]

Baloney. It costs the state of CA $45,000 per year to incarcerate each prisoner. It costs the state $14,437 per year for each individual on Medi-Cal (CA version of Medicaid). It costs the state $1650 per year for each individual receiving food stamps. And on, and on, and on.

 

We've got a 10% sales tax and an income tax that is among the highest in the nation. And that's just at the state level without even looking at all the taxes we have to pay to the Feds. Frankly, I'm sick of having so much of my family's hard-earned money go to subsidize the poor choices of others.

 

I don't care how students get the skills they need to be productive members of society, but I do care very much that they get them.

 

Are you suggesting that by having kids in school and ensuring that they get a basic education they will avoid outcomes such as prison or food stamps?

 

The end result of education isn't simply to produce someone who can get a "job," is it? Isn't that what we've discussed before on this board, how an education isn't just there to give people a skills set that will land them a certain job? Is school there to produce good citizenry? Is the government school the reason we have productive members of society? IMO that particular belief is part of the huge problem in our society, thinking institutional schooling can make up for bad parenting. Because really, an institutional setting cannot make up for a dismal family, no matter how good the school. Sometimes, yes, school is the only safe place for a kid and a kid can rise above what has kept him down, but there's a lot more in play than the fact that we sent him to school and gave him basic skills. If that child who has so much going against him already succeeds in school and life, I'd bet that it's because he bonds with a mentor there, someone who cares about him deeply. In the end, I still say becoming a productive adult is more about making deep connections with people who are able to help show us what we can do with our lives and who can lead by example and who can make us feel like we matter, not learning a skills set.

 

I guess I really don't believe that government schooling is the reason we turn out productive members of society.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Violet

[ma23peas]

I am completely jaded on this issue...

 

I'll say it... I don't think the government gives ONE iota on the well-being/education of individuals. What 'it' does care about is the revenue that child can produce....historically, a better educated child brings in more revenue...if they really cared about the well being of a child...then they would have gven tax incentives for moms or at least one parent to be able to stay at home with their child...the overwhelming majority of studies out there show that a child with two parents and having one parent at home is a great indicator that said child will NOT beincarcerated, will be better educated, and have less involvement with illegal substances (drugs/underage drinking etc.)....

 

So, you think our goverment would support that? NO! Why? Because they want to encourage 2 parent working families, why? TAXATION with ignorant representation...the more you work, the more you're stressed, you don't have time to care about how the gov't is spending your money...you just work your tail off and make sure your children go into that indoctrinated world they call school..so they can continue this path of destruction....

 

I'll pass the soapbox..

Tara

[ma23peas]

Criminals commit

crimes bc they are arses.

 

And overwhelming support for the fact that these criminals either hated their father or did not have one....there are reasons why they become arses....if only our government would throw more money into giving tax incentives to help support the family structure...but that would ultimately lose them income...so here we are in a spiraling downward slope...

 

There are so many government funded programs that are designed to give kids 'after school' programs (heck, we gotta keep both those parents working!) but not one that helps families stay together...I realize there are some wonderful single moms out there who try to make the best of it..I venture to say homeschooling works because you've usually got 2 parents supporting it and a strong belief that family comes first, not money.

 

Eventually, the government needs to realize that throwing more money in a pot won't get you better educated children...but maybe supporting the family unit will.

[RoughCollie]

My gut reaction. Some quick thoughts.

 

To some degree I think it became necessary when we started government assistance programs. To purposely neglect to educate your children makes them a financial burden on all of us.

 

An education is a right in this country and educational neglect is a crime.

:iagree:

[JWSJ]

Eventually, the government needs to realize that throwing more money in a pot won't get you better educated children...but maybe supporting the family unit will.

 

Seriously, it seems the government is undermining more traditional family structure intentionally.

 

A few months ago, I described my family as just normal.

 

My somewhat liberal sister quickly pointed out that we are NOT normal. Statistically, the majority are not in a nuclear family structure.

 

She said we needed to accept being considered freaks by most people.

[FO4UR]

 

Sending a child to school does not mean you get to wash your hands of their education.

 

:iagree: ...and no more than going to a Dr. for a check up once a year means you get to wash your hands of your health.

 

However, there are occasions to sue for malpractice. If the professional can't be held accountable for providing the service paid for (through my personal budget or my taxes), then why hire the professional in the first place?

 

I would argue that the scars left from forcing a dyslexic child to live 8 hours a day for 13 years in a classroom that doesn't teach them to read are just as bad as the physical scars left by a medical Dr who botches a surgery...and my dh lost all vision in one eye due to a botched surgery so I'm not taking it lightly.

 

...just trying to rid the world of the assumption that ps is a safe choice for all kids, the norm, and one needs to top it academically in order to justify refusing to use the system.

[Mama Geek]

Many of them are well-worshipped celebrities and elected officials! :tongue_smilie:

 

We were better off as a culture w/o compulsory state controlled education in the United States. I believe there should be NO laws in this area, and we would have fewer problems than we do now...it wouldn't be perfect but it would be better.

 

I also do not believe education is a right...we throw that word around too much and it embodies a sense of entitlement.

 

:iagree:

[Mama Geek]

In a similar vein, sometimes people make choices regarding having lots of children & end up unable to earn enough money to support a family of such a large size. What do folks suggest we do about that?

 

Seems to me the vast majority of people are regular, hard working, independent types. There always was & I suspect always will be a small minority of drifters, lazy layabouts, con men types who expect something for nothing. I don't think education laws have had any effect on the existence of that group of folks.....

 

This is where family, friends, and private charities should step in and help.

[Rosie_0801]

I would not say that a family speaking a different language than me is toddler neglect.:glare:

 

I don't think anyone said that. A family that doesn't teach any language to their toddler properly is neglect.

 

You get a lot of this with deaf kids, but that's ok, apparently, because they are teaching them to speak English. The fact that many of these kids can't learn to hear spoken English is beside the point. Talking and talking at a kid who can't hear enough to learn the language is educational neglect in my opinion. Giving up on talking at the kid because they can't hear enough and not doing anything to rectify the problem should be classed as neglect. Starting with spoken English, realising it isn't working, freaking out and learning to sign is understandable, but it shouldn't have to happen. If people are not given appropriate information or don't think to look for it (and it's not hard to find in the Age of Google) then the freak out should happen earlier than year seven.

 

Using TXMomof4's example, if a family habitually uses a Spanish-English hybrid in the house, they are, without realising it probably, neglecting their toddler. A Spanish-English hybrid is not Spanish and is not English, and their own particular hybrid is not a standard language in use anywhere outside the home. Effectively, a kid fluent in their home's hybrid will show up to school without a native language. They will have a method of communication, yes, but they won't have learned proper English or Spanish grammar and won't have an age appropriate vocabulary in either language. They won't even have the typically smaller in each language vocabulary that is common to young bilinguals, because they are not bilingual.

 

Rosie

[Murphy101]

Wow. All I can say is I adamantly disagree with you Rosie.:)

 

Otherwise, Ebonics and redneck language is neglectful as well? After all, it's not any form of proper grammar or language development.:001_huh:

[Rosie_0801]

Wow. All I can say is I adamantly disagree with you Rosie.:)

 

Otherwise, Ebonics and redneck language is neglectful as well? After all, it's not any form of proper grammar or language development.:001_huh:

 

Those dialects do have grammar, but if speakers rock up to school and can't understand what's going on, then yeah I do think it is neglect. It's not like the parents didn't know standard English would be required (I'm assuming that it is, I'm not American so I wouldn't know.)

 

There's nothing wrong with dialects providing you can code switch to the standard when required- and generally at school it is required. Any speaker of any dialect of any language is at a disadvantage if they enter school expected to be able to speak and understand the standard and can't.

 

If a kid gets to school age and can only communicate in a hybrid code that no one outside the family speaks, then I really do think that is neglect. That's not an accepted dialect, that's a failure to teach a spoken language properly because a mishmash of languages isn't teaching any language's grammar properly. The dialects you spoke of do have grammatical structures, so a child will internalise those rules. After all, It is possible to speak Ebonics improperly. With an internalised sense of syntax, they can learn another code's syntax without much trouble. This doesn't happen with a mishmash.

 

Of course if enough people speak the mishmash in much the same way, it will eventually become a dialect and will provide a language learners need for a stable grammatical structure; but to succeed in school, they will still need to be able to code-switch to something pretty close to the standard. "What do you know about anything" happens to be an acceptable greeting in my family, but I know better than to use it anywhere else! If I didn't know better, I'd be at a heck of a disadvantage, wouldn't I?

 

Rosie

[radiobrain]

Well, my husband moved here from Italy when he was 5, and his parents only spoke Italian, and as they all lived here the language in their house became a hybrid of American and Italian. He went to a local school, after 2-3 years of not going to school (long story...). So he was only slightly exposed to English until he was 8 or 9. You would never know that he ever spoke another language. Now, when he goes back to Italy, it causes him some grief... as his Italian is clogged up with Italianized American words, and he is more fluent with the familiar Italian...not the formal. Luckily, everyone there thinks it is cute, and cuts him some slack, as they can tell from his accent that he was from the Tuscan mountains and then moved to the US as a kid. It's kind of interesting. ;)

 

So, he is now the only person on the planet who speaks his own particular dialect.

 

I have no idea what this has to do with anything, I just thought I would throw that out there.

 

Now, would you consider this to have been educational neglect until the age of 9? You can't know that if someone isn't doing what you deem the right thing at the time, that they won't get on the ball at some other point. It worked out fine. If I didn't read the proper amount of books to my kids as decided by the "proper education police" and they happened to be late readers, would I be accused of educational neglect? Or could they just have been late readers regardless of anything we could have done? My parents didn't do anything special and I taught myself to read at 2, should they have gotten a prize? We are all talking about the irresponsible parents here, but when you try to regulate them, you usually end up harming those who are responsible. And a good education doesn't garauntee that you have any sense or will be a functioning member of society.

 

OMG... what Am I typing about? :confused:

[Rosie_0801]

Now, would you consider this to have been educational neglect until the age of 9?

 

Who is "you?" Me? I think I have already explained why I don't consider that educational neglect. I know kids can catch up on language later, but the longer they take, the more they are missing in the meantime. Our local deaf school gets a lot of enrollments at year seven when their parents finally decide oralism isn't working for them. Their Auslan is up to speed in a few months; not perfect, but few people have perfect Auslan and plenty will argue there isn't such a thing, but that's another story. But that's 12 years they could have been learning the other subjects that passed them by.

 

Rosie

[radiobrain]

I don't know who (or what, exactly) I was directing that towards ... I was kind of rambling into the void of the internet. ;) I think it was generally towards those who think that things need to be more regulated, not one specific person.

 

I actually came to delete it, as I am still not quite clear as to what I was attempting to say. I am usually only on here right after I wake up.

[TXMomof4]

Prime example of no shared culture to be found in govt schools. I would not say that a family speaking a different language than me is toddler neglect.:glare:

 

I didn't say the children didn't speak English. I said they didn't have ANY real language skills. They were unable to communicate effectively in Spanish OR in English. That is most certainly neglect and it usually went hand in hand with physical neglect.

 

ETA: Just read above and exactly what Rosie said. Instead of a teacher beginning with teaching letters, colors, shapes, etc. the teacher is having to begin with "I want a cup, I need a drink, I like food, etc." Not to read - to speak. If the child had Spanish, they would be taught in an ESL class and become (in theory) bilingual. As it is they don't even have the language skills of a 2 yo in either language going into preK or K.

Edited September 7, 2010 by TXMomof4