Homeschooling - No Matter What?

[WIS0320]

The Quebec thread got me thinking a bit about homeschooling and the rights of parents. I am officially in my first year of homeschooling and my children are very little, my oldest is currently 5 years old and we've had a fairly relaxed K year. I also understand that there are all sorts of styles of homeschooling from very rigorous classical homeschoolers to radical unschoolers. The homeschooling umbrella is broad and encompasses a lot of philosophies. So, please understand my own personal experience with homeschooling and my current situation when you read these comments (being a "new" homeschooler can be a bit terrifying on these boards when it has been clear lately that some people feel that you need a great deal of experience under your belt to have any sort of opinion about homeschooling!).

 

With all that said, do you think it is ever appropriate for the government to step in and demand that a child be offered an "education"? There are times in which it is obvious that parents' are either abusive or do not have their children's best interests at heart and I fully support intercession to save those children from their parents neglect. But homeschooling seems a taboo safety for some people, in that the homeschooling community rallies around and harbors and protects parents who are doing very little to educate and prepare their children for adulthood. It doesn't matter if we homeschoolers own up to it, we know they are out there - and court cases against homeschoolers are regularly sighed over in disgust by other homeschooling parents.

 

I think this leads me to another unsafe, hot topic which is being extremely pro-life - I am because I am an adherent Catholic - which basically means that all those humans who are conceived have a right to life. But where does that stop? Don't children have a right to be safe, to be well educated and to be prepared for adulthood? Do parents' rights trump their children's rights to being healthy and prepared and well educated? When do parents' rights end and children's rights supercede those of their parents? Only in cases of outright physical neglect? Does mental neglect not come into play at some point?

 

I am fervently in favor of the right of homeschooling parents to be able to do so without interference from the government. But part of me wonders if it isn't a bit foolhardy to allow parents to homeschool and completely neglect their child's education (and this IS legally possible in some states). How is that benefitting the child in the end and isn't that a form of abuse?

[fhjmom]

I understand your point and do not totally disagree with the concern behind hind; however, the flip side is that sending a child to a public school does not guarantee he/she will be educated either. If public school were doing a great job and could guarantee that every student that darkens their doors would be prepared for adulthood, the argument would hold more water IMHO. Because so many of our public schools are failling (and I would daresay that even the best public schools still fail some students), I am very wary to give up parental rights to educate children at home for mandatory public education no matter what. It is a slippery slope when the government has the right to over rule parents because "they know what is better for our children".

[meggie]

I cannot adequately put into words what I feel about this.

 

I can, from the bottom of my heart, say that people who "homeschool" but are really just neglecting their children are a disgrace and should be ashamed. It is my religious belief that they will be held accountable for it.

 

It is also my religious belief that I cannot make anyone else do anything. I cannot make anyone else be kind, I cannot make them learn, I cannot make other parents be better parents.

 

I don't think the government has that ability either.

[Farrar]

With all that said, do you think it is ever appropriate for the government to step in and demand that a child be offered an "education"? There are times in which it is obvious that parents' are either abusive or do not have their children's best interests at heart and I fully support intercession to save those children from their parents neglect. But homeschooling seems a taboo safety for some people, in that the homeschooling community rallies around and harbors and protects parents who are doing very little to educate and prepare their children for adulthood. It doesn't matter if we homeschoolers own up to it, we know they are out there - and court cases against homeschoolers are regularly sighed over in disgust by other homeschooling parents.

 

 

Unless there's real abuse going on, I would usually, though not always say no. It makes me sad that there are homeschoolers out there who don't really educate and equip their kids for the world, but it also makes me sad when the public schools don't.

 

It's so difficult to define what should constitute educational neglect on the part of the parents and we have to be careful when we look at this. To many people, a kid not being taught to read by age 7 or 8 would be criminal, but to many unschooling families, this would be a totally normal situation, and part of a valid educational philosophy. Other people would say that a kid not testing at a certain level should have to be in school, but how do you account for learning problems without creating a degree of bureaucracy that quickly becomes onerous for families (not to mention governments). I just think it could become a slippery slope very quickly.

[twoforjoy]

As hard as it is to pin down, I think intent matters. If a parent has the intention of educating their child in the way they see fit, but that way is different from what I or the local school district or the government thinks is appropriate, I may feel badly for the child, but I do think the parent has the right to direct their child's education. If that means radical unschooling, or using the Bible as the only textbook, or using textbooks from the 1800s only, or whatever educational choice I might personally disagree with and think isn't very effective or useful, as long as the intention of the parent is to provide their child with an education that will prepare them for life, I do think that they should be free to do so. At the very least, once the child is 18, they'll be free to pursue their own education, and as long as they have some degree of basic skills, they can do so. That's why things like the Amish ending formal schooling in eighth grade doesn't bother me in the slightest. It works for their community, and nothing is stopping a person from pursuing more education on their own or formally once they reach adulthood.

 

But, if the parents' intention is to leave their child uneducated--which I do think is very rarely the case, but unfortunately sometimes is, especially in households where there are other forms of abuse and neglect--then I do think the state has not just the right, but the obligation to step in and make sure the child receives an education.

 

That said, though, I have no problem with some regulation of homeschooling. Quite honestly I wish Michigan, the state where I live, had more standards. There is no regulation of homeschooling at all. I could simply allow my son to play video games all day, while forbidding him to read books, and there is no system in place to make sure that's not happening. That worries me. I think a great deal of leeway is needed, but I also think that the rights of children matter and should be protected, and I count the right to an education among them. It's a delicate balance, no doubt, but I am very wary of moving too far to the "parental rights" side, because children have so few rights in the U.S. and I'd hate to see the few they have be dismissed or overturned.

Edited May 13, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Tarreymere]

It is difficult to argue that public education is in the best interest of all children. I think that the people who love the child the best and who have made the committment to be there for that child for a lifetime have the right to decide what is best for that particular child. I am especially leery of being told by any government what is 'best' for anybody. Historically that kind of thing doesn't tend to be 'best' for anyone except the people running the government. As a parent, I am more than just a breeder for the state.

[WIS0320]

Other people would say that a kid not testing at a certain level should have to be in school, but how do you account for learning problems without creating a degree of bureaucracy that quickly becomes onerous for families (not to mention governments). I just think it could become a slippery slope very quickly.

 

I AGREE. However, I am not necessarily trying to compare failing public schools to failing homeschoolers. I see the situations as very different. Public schools fail because of a myriad of different reasons than homeschooling parents fail.

 

I stated in my first paragraph of the OP that I understand there are widely diverging homeschooling educational philosophies out there in practice. BUT, I also think that people can choose to call themselves an x,y,z type of homeschooler and then use that label to allow them to completely disregard their child's education. If I child weren't being fed food by their parents I would be in support of the government stepping in and removing the child. I see educational starvation in a similar way but perhaps having even more longterm negative effects for the child because it is much harder to correct longterm.

 

YES, I agree that public schools can fail but the paranoid fear of public schools by a large portion of the homeschooling sector is pretty off-base to me and out of alignment with reality. A child who is receiving zero educational opportunities at home should at least be offered a chance of an education at school. Even in my own lackluster public school career there was always at least one teacher in every single post-elementary grade year in which I found an ally, a person who really wanted the children in their classrooms to succeed.

 

I will also say that I think there is a lot more going on in the world that is fueling the poor performance of public ed students than just the instruction, curriculum and teachers. The media and all its glory of largely uneducated human beings who choose to behave in poor ways and the rewarding those behaviors with a lot of money are doing great harm.

 

But that is pulling this discussion off topic. I guess I find it off-putting that homeschoolers as a group so distrust public education that they believe that zero education from parents is better than a court mandating a child to go to public school. I find that position ludicrous. At the same time I have no idea how to define what is neglectful in terms of providing education to a child since the homeschooling parameters are so large and diverse. But, just like abuse or pornography, I don't necessarily have to have a concrete definition to know that I can identify it when I see it.

[Rosy]

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which I would support court-mandated public schooling where there wasn't abuse. If there was abuse, hopefully the child would be removed from the home, not just sent to school.

[twoforjoy]

I guess I find it off-putting that homeschoolers as a group so distrust public education that they believe that zero education from parents is better than a court mandating a child to go to public school. I find that position ludicrous.

 

I think it's because most homeschooling parents are good, loving parents invested in their child's education, and it's very hard for them to understand that there are unfortunately parents out there who are completely, totally, and profoundly uninterested in their child being educated. In some cases, they are even outright hostile to the idea. And I think that both makes it very easy to assume that the problem with public schools MUST lay with the teachers and administrators and their methods (rather than with the home environment, even though research has indicated that it's home environment that makes by far the largest difference in educational outcomes), and to assume that most if not nearly all students would be better off educated at home than educated in a public school.

 

Thankfully, most parents who don't care at all about their child's education send them to public school, so at least the students are getting an education. (And I admire the teachers who are working with these kids so much, because they and the kids are up against enormous odds.) They don't generally keep them home and deny them an education.

[merry gardens]

After 13 years of public schooling, few high school graduates today are ready for adulthood. Some of them cannot even read. That's after hundred of thousands of public dollars were spent on education. Government education hardly guarantees well-educated adults who can take care of themselves.

 

I don't know what should be done for neglectful homeschoolers, but the government stepping in to force neglectful parents to send their children to public schools might not help the situation. Success in public schools is largely dependent on parental involvement.

Edited May 13, 2011 by merry gardens

[K&Rs Mom]

Quite honestly I wish Michigan, the state where I live, had more standards. There is no regulation of homeschooling at all. I could simply allow my son to play video games all day, while forbidding him to read books, and there is no system in place to make sure that's not happening. That worries me.

 

Michigan law: "MCLA § 380.1561(3)(f) (effective July 1, 1996). 1. A child is not required to attend a public school if:

“The child is being educated at the child’s home by his or her parent or legal guardian in an organized educational program in the subject areas of reading, spelling, mathematics, science, history, civics, literature, writing, and English grammar.â€

2. There are no requirements to notify, seek approval, test, file forms, or have any certain teacher qualifications. The burden is on the state to prove that the parents are not teaching their children."

 

I read this as if someone from a state agency thought you were forbidding books & playing video games all day, they could bring charges if they thought they could prove you are not teaching. I know a lot of people think we're totally unregulated, but actually we're just untested & unwatched - once a problem is reported/noticed, there IS a standard, it's just really vague. Personally, I prefer it that way, because it allows for all the different styles or philosophies. Someone mentioned in another thread the idea of educational neglect, and (unless it's changed recently) that is a real, prosecutable, offense in MI. Though I may start another thread asking whether prosecutable is really a word. ;)

[WIS0320]

After 13 years of public schooling, few high school graduates today are ready for adulthood. Some of them cannot even read. That's after hundred of thousands of public dollars were spent on education. Government education hardly guarantees well-educated adults who can take care of themselves.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think in some areas this is true but on the whole, that is a gross generalization of the quality of education that is provided in public schools. And I would add that a large part of the problem is that we choose to not fund public schools nationally but rather on a local level so it really is a crapshoot for kids based on where and to whom they are born to in regards to the quality of the public education that they will receive.

 

Public schools can fail kids, private schools can fail kids and homeschooling parents can fail kids - even when they have good intentions. I guess there are two divergent conversations emerging here. First, is homeschooling in any form always preferable to the public school option and second, does the government have a right to step in and determine the type of education a child will receive? To be honest I didn't want this thread to become an indictment of public education, which seems to be the gut reaction response by the majority of homeschoolers I've talked about this issue. It shouldn't be a matter of homeschoolers being allowed to be neglectful because sometimes public schooling fails.

 

Listen, I think the vast majority of homeschoolers are doing a great job, trying their best and are intensely interested in providing a quality education for their children and by far the people I will interact with on a forum like this are going to be in that camp - just seeking information in a social forum like this about homeschooling demonstrates that the sample of people contributing to a discussion like this here is not necessarily representative of the homeschooling community across the board.

 

So, I guess the bottom line question I have is:

 

Do you think that even grossly negligent homeschooling parents should still be afforded the right to educate their children at home, as they see fit, with no intrusion from the government?

[K&Rs Mom]

So, I guess the bottom line question I have is:

 

Do you think that even grossly negligent homeschooling parents should still be afforded the right to educate their children at home, as they see fit, with no intrusion from the government?

 

No, I think they would forfeit that right, at least temporarily. The problem comes with defining "negligent" and then figuring out who fits that definition.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Michigan law: "MCLA § 380.1561(3)(f) (effective July 1, 1996). 1. A child is not required to attend a public school if:

“The child is being educated at the child’s home by his or her parent or legal guardian in an organized educational program in the subject areas of reading, spelling, mathematics, science, history, civics, literature, writing, and English grammar.â€

2. There are no requirements to notify, seek approval, test, file forms, or have any certain teacher qualifications. The burden is on the state to prove that the parents are not teaching their children."

 

 

That's it! I'm moving to Michigan!!! :tongue_smilie:

[justasque]

I guess I find it off-putting that homeschoolers as a group so distrust public education that they believe that zero education from parents is better than a court mandating a child to go to public school. I find that position ludicrous.

 

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think many kids are well-served by public education. However, I think that what *appears* to be "zero education" isn't always, and that parents know best when to push/encourage and when their kid has enough on their plate. I often think of a friend with a special needs kid. I've seen how such kids are treated in my local public school, and it wasn't pretty. My friend's "free range" parenting would in many circumstances appear to come very close to neglect, but for THIS PARTICULAR CHILD, the parent's carefully thought-out choices were exactly what the child needed, and the child blossomed in a way that could never have happened at school (just because of the very nature of the structure and focus of a school, however good the school). No school official could know this child as well as the parents. No school official could be as well-educated on the child's specific issues as the parents. For me, it comes down to "who decides". And as a general rule, I think it's best for the parent to decide.

 

At the same time I have no idea how to define what is neglectful in terms of providing education to a child since the homeschooling parameters are so large and diverse. But, just like abuse or pornography, I don't necessarily have to have a concrete definition to know that I can identify it when I see it.

 

I think the problem is that SOME (not all) public school officials have worked in a school environment for so long that they don't really have a sense of how education could work outside of that structure. SOME (not all) of them have little to no experience in customizing education to a particular child's academic level or interests. Most of them, while having experience writing lesson plans for a particular topic, have not written or chosen curriculum for a full year's subjects (with an eye towards a full K-12 education for a particular child).

 

They also haven't seen "free range" little kids who spend hours playing Lego or elaborate "pretend" games or curled up with a book instead of taking spelling tests, develop into engaged, eager learners. Thus if school officials don't see worksheets and desks and textbooks, they may not understand, especially for young children, how any learning is taking place.

 

And so their "I know it when I see it" is going to be quite different than that of an experienced homeschool mom who has seen unpopular/unorthodox methods nurture kids who go on to be as successful (even at traditional things like college) as kids who have spent K-12 in school. Again - it's about who makes the judgement call, and I don't trust someone whose whole career has been in traditional schooling methods to understand that sometimes an outside-the-box approach can be as effective if not more than what they may be used to.

[Marie in Oh]

I mean, what are we talking here, 1% of homeschoolers? I personally don't know anyone who homeschools whose kids aren't being educated and I know alot of homeschoolers. Are they doing it the way I do or think is best? No, but that doesn't matter because they are the stewards of their children, not me. I know they are out there, people who are truly negligent of their children's education, but even those families that I know that unschool, I couldn't say they are guilty of ed neglect. Perhaps a poll would help us to see what percentage of us know homeschoolers who are guilty of ed neg.

[Ellie]

Short answer: No. It is not the government's job to see that children are educated.

[Crispa]

I've known book-smart, scholarship-winning public school graduates who don't know how to use a nonelectric can opener (and won't try; will avoid canned food instead) or run the washing machine or sweep a floor or politely introduce their grandma to their boyfriend. What constitutes preparation for adulthood, or educational neglect?

 

I think it is very, very hard to *prevent* a child from learning. Without any sort of curriculum, most children will, sooner or later, learn how to read and count and get by in the world and look up whatever practical skills they need on WikiHow. (I think it's safe to say that most of us here want to help that process along. :) But, alas, our kids would almost certainly learn the basics even without us, I'm pretty sure.) And, as others have said, there is no guarantee that a child will learn more, or be better off in general, at school than at home -- even if there is no formal "teaching" going on at home. A child who is bullied mercilessly at school, for example, is certainly better off at home than at school -- even if that home doesn't hold a single book!

 

Eh, where am I going with this? Barring obvious physical or emotional abuse or neglect, I don't think anyone could offer much of a case for "educational neglect." Is an unschooled child who learns to read at age 10 and doesn't know the first thing about bar graphs and starts his first business at age 15 "educationally neglected"? How about a public-schooled child who learns to read at age 10 and doesn't know the first thing about bar graphs and starts his first business at age 15? ;)

[Rosie_0801]

More concerning to me is that it is legal to raise a child without a fully functional first language. But that's an issue for another thread.

 

Rosie

[merry gardens]

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think many kids are well-served by public education. However, I think that what *appears* to be "zero education" isn't always, and that parents know best when to push/encourage and when their kid has enough on their plate. I often think of a friend with a special needs kid. I've seen how such kids are treated in my local public school, and it wasn't pretty. My friend's "free range" parenting would in many circumstances appear to come very close to neglect, but for THIS PARTICULAR CHILD, the parent's carefully thought-out choices were exactly what the child needed, and the child blossomed in a way that could never have happened at school (just because of the very nature of the structure and focus of a school, however good the school). No school official could know this child as well as the parents. No school official could be as well-educated on the child's specific issues as the parents. For me, it comes down to "who decides". And as a general rule, I think it's best for the parent to decide.

 

 

 

I think the problem is that SOME (not all) public school officials have worked in a school environment for so long that they don't really have a sense of how education could work outside of that structure. SOME (not all) of them have little to no experience in customizing education to a particular child's academic level or interests. Most of them, while having experience writing lesson plans for a particular topic, have not written or chosen curriculum for a full year's subjects (with an eye towards a full K-12 education for a particular child).

 

They also haven't seen "free range" little kids who spend hours playing Lego or elaborate "pretend" games or curled up with a book instead of taking spelling tests, develop into engaged, eager learners. Thus if school officials don't see worksheets and desks and textbooks, they may not understand, especially for young children, how any learning is taking place.

 

And so their "I know it when I see it" is going to be quite different than that of an experienced homeschool mom who has seen unpopular/unorthodox methods nurture kids who go on to be as successful (even at traditional things like college) as kids who have spent K-12 in school. Again - it's about who makes the judgement call, and I don't trust someone whose whole career has been in traditional schooling methods to understand that sometimes an outside-the-box approach can be as effective if not more than what they may be used to.

:iagree:

 

 

If parents truly neglect their child's educations, then problems will likely come to the attention of public officials in some way. Divorce courts, child-custody fights, drug enforcement, traffic violations, something.

 

It's highly unlikely that two parents (mom and dad) would be able to neglect their children's education and remain totally upstanding in all other areas of their life and/or produce children who never gets into trouble with the law. The government can step in when problems happen.

[Farrar]

YES, I agree that public schools can fail but the paranoid fear of public schools by a large portion of the homeschooling sector is pretty off-base to me and out of alignment with reality. A child who is receiving zero educational opportunities at home should at least be offered a chance of an education at school. Even in my own lackluster public school career there was always at least one teacher in every single post-elementary grade year in which I found an ally, a person who really wanted the children in their classrooms to succeed.

 

 

I see what you're saying, however, I find it hard to believe that there are very many cases of educational neglect (where there are genuinely zero educational opportunities) that aren't coupled with other forms of neglect and abuse. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there may be some, but someone up thread said perhaps 1% of homeschoolers might fall into this category. That was obviously just a guess and so is this, but I found that to be a very high guess. The overwhelming majority of homeschoolers care about the education of their kids. Period. As someone else said, intent matters. And I find that intent to be the most important factor here - again, assuming there aren't other forms of abuse present in the house.

 

A lot of people have made this into a question about public schools vs. homeschooling. I think that misses the essential question, which is whether the government has the right to determine the education of a child over the parents' wishes. Whether or not the schools the government offers are any good seem to me to be beside the point if the parents have decided to opt out of them.

[mommymilkies]

I understand your point and do not totally disagree with the concern behind hind; however, the flip side is that sending a child to a public school does not guarantee he/she will be educated either. If public school were doing a great job and could guarantee that every student that darkens their doors would be prepared for adulthood, the argument would hold more water IMHO. Because so many of our public schools are failling (and I would daresay that even the best public schools still fail some students), I am very wary to give up parental rights to educate children at home for mandatory public education no matter what. It is a slippery slope when the government has the right to over rule parents because "they know what is better for our children".

:iagree:

[Harriet Vane]

It is difficult to argue that public education is in the best interest of all children. I think that the people who love the child the best and who have made the commitment to be there for that child for a lifetime have the right to decide what is best for that particular child. I am especially leery of being told by any government what is 'best' for anybody. Historically that kind of thing doesn't tend to be 'best' for anyone except the people running the government. As a parent, I am more than just a breeder for the state.

 

:iagree: Especially with the highlighted.

[LND1218]

The problem comes with defining "negligent" and then figuring out who fits that definition.

 

Short answer: No. It is not the government's job to see that children are educated.

 

:iagree:

[BlsdMama]

Now I have to go get the quote from Carry On Mr. Bowditch that we read last night. :glare:

 

While I think it is TRAGIC that some parents would neglect to give their children a proper education it is more important to me that we stay free to homeschool than to begin the slippery slope of regulating.

[cathmom]

Thankfully, most parents who don't care at all about their child's education send them to public school, so at least the students are getting an education. (And I admire the teachers who are working with these kids so much, because they and the kids are up against enormous odds.) They don't generally keep them home and deny them an education.

 

The bolded is not necessarily true.

 

I read this as if someone from a state agency thought you were forbidding books & playing video games all day, they could bring charges if they thought they could prove you are not teaching. I know a lot of people think we're totally unregulated, but actually we're just untested & unwatched - once a problem is reported/noticed, there IS a standard, it's just really vague. Personally, I prefer it that way, because it allows for all the different styles or philosophies. Someone mentioned in another thread the idea of educational neglect, and (unless it's changed recently) that is a real, prosecutable, offense in MI. Though I may start another thread asking whether prosecutable is really a word. ;)

 

If you forbid books and allow all the video games a child wants to play, they might want to read LOL! Forbidden fruit and all that. That might be a better education. :D

[mhgillil]

I think that this is a really complicated issue. I personally do not believe that the government has any business interfering with education. I also do not believe that we have a "right" to education (the term "right" gets thrown around far too lightly), but we do have the right to pursue education. With an adult, this isn't really an issue because we are capable of seeking out opportunities for education. With a child, he/she is almost entirely dependent on what his/her parent(s) provide(s). If a parent prevents a child or does not help a child for whom he/she is responsible pursue an education, is that negligence or abuse?

[Laura Corin]

I think that children have a right to an education that fits them for mainstream society. This does not mean that the child has to agree with, for example, evolution, genetic engineering or contraception, but the child should have learned about those topics that are covered by mainstream education.

 

In addition, a child should have enough maths and English, at the very least, to understand a mortgage application and write a letter of application for a job - whether that knowledge is acquired in school or at home. If the basics are not being supplied at home, and they are available in a school, then there is a moment when the authorities should step in. That moment will always be subject to dispute, as will the definition of an education for mainstream society.

 

Laura

[twoforjoy]

I see what you're saying, however, I find it hard to believe that there are very many cases of educational neglect (where there are genuinely zero educational opportunities) that aren't coupled with other forms of neglect and abuse.

 

I think this is important. Yes, I'm sure educational neglect happens, but in nearly all serious cases, I have no doubt it's coupled with other forms of abuse and neglect. And, honestly, in those cases the educational neglect is probably a far less pressing issue than the other forms of neglect and abuse in the home. If the other forms of abuse/neglect are addressed, either by removing the child from the home or more closely monitoring the family, then I'd assume the educational issues would be taken care of, too.

 

After 13 years of public schooling, few high school graduates today are ready for adulthood.

 

What do you mean? Why do you blame the schools for this? I'd agree that few young people can be fully-functioning independent adults at 18. However, I don't think the schools are to blame. 18-year-olds 50 and 100 years ago were no better educated than our young people, and in reality they probably had fewer academic skills. Our young people simply lack the opportunities to be independent adults.

 

If we want young people to be ready for adulthood faster, then let's make sure that a hard-working young person with a high school diploma can, if they want, obtain a job paying enough that they could support themselves--and perhaps even a family--on it. Not lavishly, but at the very least meet the basic needs of themselves and perhaps a spouse and child. But we do not offer that. The unemployment rate for under 25s is 52%; the "underemployment" rate is significantly higher. These young people want jobs. They want to be independent. But the opportunities are not there for them, yet we turn around and blame them (and maybe their teachers) for the situation.

[KristinaBreece]

I think this is important. Yes, I'm sure educational neglect happens, but in nearly all serious cases, I have no doubt it's coupled with other forms of abuse and neglect. And, honestly, in those cases the educational neglect is probably a far less pressing issue than the other forms of neglect and abuse in the home. If the other forms of abuse/neglect are addressed, either by removing the child from the home or more closely monitoring the family, then I'd assume the educational issues would be taken care of, too.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Why do you blame the schools for this? I'd agree that few young people can be fully-functioning independent adults at 18. However, I don't think the schools are to blame. 18-year-olds 50 and 100 years ago were no better educated than our young people, and in reality they probably had fewer academic skills. Our young people simply lack the opportunities to be independent adults.

 

If we want young people to be ready for adulthood faster, then let's make sure that a hard-working young person with a high school diploma can, if they want, obtain a job paying enough that they could support themselves--and perhaps even a family--on it. Not lavishly, but at the very least meet the basic needs of themselves and perhaps a spouse and child. But we do not offer that. The unemployment rate for under 25s is 52%; the "underemployment" rate is significantly higher. These young people want jobs. They want to be independent. But the opportunities are not there for them, yet we turn around and blame them (and maybe their teachers) for the situation.

 

:iagree: wholeheartedly. My DH supports our family (very frugally) on $12/hr, plus what I make doing in-home day care & freelance portrait photography (read: not a whole h*ll of a lot). We only manage this because I was raised primarily by Depression-era grandparents. Most people no longer have the skills to stretch a dollar quite that far. Were I to get a job outside of our home at this point, I would find myself paying out my entire check to day care, gas and upkeep/insurance on another car. It just wouldn't be worth it. My grandfather said the other day that he doesn't understand how young people are supposed to make a living these days. He said he was able to support a wife & child very well when he came out of high school, just working in propane delivery. (Making 1/3 of what a propane deliverer would make today.) The jobs are no longer there that will allow you to support a family without a degree-- and sometimes the jobs aren't even there for those with a degree. Too many applicants who are too well-educated-- it's not economically sustainable.

[merry gardens]

What do you mean? Why do you blame the schools for this? I'd agree that few young people can be fully-functioning independent adults at 18. However, I don't think the schools are to blame. 18-year-olds 50 and 100 years ago were no better educated than our young people, and in reality they probably had fewer academic skills. Our young people simply lack the opportunities to be independent adults.

 

If we want young people to be ready for adulthood faster, then let's make sure that a hard-working young person with a high school diploma can, if they want, obtain a job paying enough that they could support themselves--and perhaps even a family--on it. Not lavishly, but at the very least meet the basic needs of themselves and perhaps a spouse and child. But we do not offer that. The unemployment rate for under 25s is 52%; the "underemployment" rate is significantly higher. These young people want jobs. They want to be independent. But the opportunities are not there for them, yet we turn around and blame them (and maybe their teachers) for the situation.

Thank you for asking. What I meant was that after 13 years of public school at a great expense to society, most 18 yo are not able to support themselves and enter into society without parental support. Most go to college or technical school or somehow otherwise continue to remain dependant on their parents for support for the next several years. Kristina's grandfather's sums it up:

 

...My grandfather said the other day that he doesn't understand how young people are supposed to make a living these days. He said he was able to support a wife & child very well when he came out of high school, just working in propane delivery. (Making 1/3 of what a propane deliverer would make today.) The jobs are no longer there that will allow you to support a family without a degree-- and sometimes the jobs aren't even there for those with a degree. Too many applicants who are too well-educated-- it's not economically sustainable.

It's not simply an educational problem; it is a societal problem. High school graduates used to be able to enter the adult working world mostly right out of high school, and now they don't. Few people are able to totally support themselves right out of high school. A neglected homeschooler from a family that has managed to stay out of legal trouble for eighteen years is probably just as poorly equipted for the "real world" as most any other 18 yo today. Edited May 13, 2011 by merry gardens