A Post: In Which I Reconsider My Original Premise and Make an About-Face

[Farrar]

I can't conceive of any, either, which is why I've always been against state regulation. I also don't trust a large state bureaucracy to carry out... well, much of anything these days, LOL. ;) And, like you said, I don't think the regs will make a difference in what people actually do.

 

Farrar -- What would you do if you truly felt some children were not getting an ethical opportunity for at least a basic education?

 

Oh, that's so sad. I think it's fine for a family not to see value in going through a curriculum, but when a teenager is begging to go to school and the parent is refusing to allow them more access to basic education such as by getting them some curricula, then that's pretty sad. I've seen some unschool families that make me cringe, but nothing on that level. More like in a "I think you'll regret that parenting decision down the road, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut" kind of way.

 

To me, what you're describing might go beyond homeschool or school and regulations of them. It might be considered educational neglect. And if you couple that with a house that might be unsafe... That's a tough call, but I might call the authorities. :(

[Mergath]

 

No, it wouldn't be your child giving up her liberty, it would be the parents giving up the freedom to parent their child in the way they see fit. The regulation would undermine the parental authority. The state does not have authority over the child, the parents do. We don't have children to be wards of the state.

 

Making sure that homeschooled kids aren't illiterate when they graduate isn't undermining parental authority. I really don't get the argument that it's a parent's right to keep their kids home and not educate them. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference. I think my child has the right to an education, independent of my desires, whereas a lot of parents around here see children as property, and if they don't want to teach their kids to read, that's their god-given right. I find that sad and strongly disagree.

[Mergath]

 

Which is still a bureaucratic regulation imposed by the state.

 

Yes. I guess I fail to share everyone's outrage over that.

[justamouse]

Making sure that homeschooled kids aren't illiterate when they graduate isn't undermining parental authority. I really don't get the argument that it's a parent's right to keep their kids home and not educate them. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference. I think my child has the right to an education, independent of my desires, whereas a lot of parents around here see children as property, and if they don't want to teach their kids to read, that's their god-given right. I find that sad and strongly disagree.

 

I do not see my child as property, and I can safely say that neither do most of the posters disagreeing with you. We see them as people who were loaned to us, who we have the grave responsibility of rearing *in the way we se fit*.

 

I can pretty safely tell you that most of the women disagreeing with you also say that children, being their own person, have a right to an education not independent of our desires, but because we understand that these are people, not property.

 

No one is saying that it is right to not educate their children--AT ALL. We are saying that the *state* has no right to oversee the education of our children, as it doesn't have the right to parent our children in any way, which homeschool oversight would be.

 

The state can not manage to educate the children it has been given the task of educating.

[justamouse]

 

Oh, that's so sad. I think it's fine for a family not to see value in going through a curriculum, but when a teenager is begging to go to school and the parent is refusing to allow them more access to basic education such as by getting them some curricula, then that's pretty sad. I've seen some unschool families that make me cringe, but nothing on that level. More like in a "I think you'll regret that parenting decision down the road, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut" kind of way.

 

To me, what you're describing might go beyond homeschool or school and regulations of them. It might be considered educational neglect. And if you couple that with a house that might be unsafe... That's a tough call, but I might call the authorities. :(

 

 

I really agree with Tibbie and Farrar.

 

In all honesty, if I were you, I would be questioning if you were 'allowed' to see that because with your background, you knew precisely where the lines were. That Dd might be praying every day for someone to save her, and the curtain was pulled back for you.

[Sahamamama]

OP, I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it. I've been in your shoes. I take homeschooling very seriously -- it is my job and I work myself into a state of exhaustion trying to do it well. I've gone back and forth on the issue of more regulation/less regulation and I'm torn. At a surface level, more regulation makes sense. All kids deserve an adequate education, and parents who just let their kids play Minecraft and go to park days aren't preparing them for higher education. Those kids will be at a loss if they decide to attend college in the future. On the other hand, I see a whole lot of negative consequences by giving more control to the government. There are plenty of students in government-runs schools who are NOT learning anything. If there are further government regulations, will the government eventually dictate which curriculum we use and subjects we teach? I don't believe in standardized tests as a measure of success -- especially as the mom of a special needs child who is plodding away below grade-level in math. Should my homeschool program be terminated because my 4th grader bombs the 4th grade standardized test because he is diligently working on a 3rd grade math curriculum? Based on test scores in that one area, it would appear that I'm not doing a good job educating my child, when I am. He would probably do worse if he was in school, but the school's program wouldn't be terminated if my son failed.

 

As I said, I'm on the fence. If you ask me on any given day, I'll be leaning more one way than the other.

 

 

Yes, to your entire post! :) I used to tutor boys like your son -- they were PS kids who were far, far behind (usually in language skills). The key to moving forward was to begin where they needed to start, no matter how far "back" that might be. You are so right, it wouldn't look good on paper or to an evaluator, and yet, that was what these boys needed.

 

FWIW, I also think that many of those boys simply needed more time to develop, exercise, do chores, and mature. Too much seatwork at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 was exhausting them, making their posture muscles weak, and giving them the message that they were failures -- FAILURES! -- at such young and tender ages. I used to tell parents to put a big X through any busywork homework from the school and send their son outside to climb and play. ;)

 

You see, I think that some of my angst is that there is a latent unschooler in me, ha ha! I can see how and when and why that might really be the best approach for some kids, for some seasons of life. This family, though, makes me worry for the children in it.

[Sahamamama]

 

I don't know where you live, but this describes Las Vegas education environment to a "T".

 

 

Justamouse and I both live in New Jersey.

 

Justamouse -- you cracked me up with "as long as they get our taxes." Ain't that the truth?

[Mandy in TN]

OP, in the situation that you have described, not schooling but keeping children at home sounds like it is the result of or part of a much bigger problem. If the mother has a mental health issue which causes her to be unable to provide a safe living environment, is she keeping the kids at home to hide the mental health issue? Is she together enough to have thought that through or is her whole life this way and she can't see that any of it is inappropriate? Either way it sounds like there is much more here that is concerning. If this is a mental health issue, offering books or tutoring isn't going to do anything about the big picture.

 

If you feel that this is something that needs investigation, do whatever you think should be done. :(

Mandy

[ondreeuh]

 

 

What does the bolded word mean in your culture? I know what it means around here but I don't want to misunderstand you.

 

I was about to post to the PP, "I don't think this means what you think it means." Glad I'm not the only one. The PP is in Florida, but I think it means the same thing everywhere. Not something you want to throw around when you are trying to be serious.

[albeto]

nevermind, just read the pertinent post.

[Sahamamama]

This is neglect! We already have laws on the books for neglect. You saw a home that you would have reported when you were a social worker. Why did you not report now? Why did you first think about their homeschooling instead of calling for help about the filth?

 

I'm not meaning to scold you, I'm just pointing out that neglect usually spans across a few aspects of a child's life. We have some procedures that can be followed if a family is completely snowed under like this and Mom is living in denial. We don't say it's OK for a child to live in squalor, no matter how he's educated.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that I would have considered the house "reportable" back in the day. No, thinking about it now, no, we would have made note of the condition of the bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen and living areas, but that house would NOT have been the bottom of the barrel. Not really by a long shot, in spite of the smell and the filth and the complete disarray (and it's not like we dropped in unexpectedly; we were invited).

 

In the worst houses, there are not only no clean sheets on the beds, or no sheets on the beds, there are no beds. As a social worker, I preferred the dirty sheets on the unmade beds to none at all, because then at least I knew the children were sleeping in a bed, and where, and sometimes with whom (sibling, parent, step-parent, etc.).

 

In the worst houses, there are not only dirty dishes in the sink and on the counters, there is no evidence of children having been fed. As a social worker, I preferred the dirty dishes to none at all, because then I could see that at least the children were eating, even if it was always hot dogs and spaghetti.

 

In the worst house, there are not only filthy, unwashed walls, there are bullet holes. As a social worker, I preferred the dirty walls to those with bullet holes, because then I felt the children were mostly safe from random acts of violence.

 

No... this house was dirty, that's for sure. It hasn't been cleaned or repaired in years, it seems, so there's that aspect. And it's hard to fathom why it's this way. These are well-educated, college-graduated, nicely employed people. They could have a lovely home, but it's like a bomb hit it. We were not the only parents dropping children off at the party who were in shock! In fact, one mother walked around with a horrified look on her face, and she never did leave her child there, it was that bad.

 

But if you hadn't been in the home, you would never know how they live! They always are clean. The house had a terrible odor, but these people never smell offensive. They are always clean, shampooed, groomed, and nicely dressed in clean clothes. I'm also certain they all eat a healthy diet, too. So, no, I don't consider that part of their care "reportable." I'm not sure how to work out the rest of it, though.

 

I'm simply going to have to wrap my head around "radical unschooling," not as my choice, but as the choice of another mother. It's her choice, for her children. I like the freedom to make my choices for mine.

[ondreeuh]

 

 

I don't know if it has a special meaning around here. I don't think it has a special meaning like tea time. My personal vocabulary is colorful. This has been pointed out to me before in other threads.

 

Oh good grief. Wanking means jerking off. "Wanking to studies" says that someone is masturbating to the studies. Is that what you mean by colorful?

[Sahamamama]

 

 

I really agree with Tibbie and Farrar.

 

In all honesty, if I were you, I would be questioning if you were 'allowed' to see that because with your background, you knew precisely where the lines were. That Dd might be praying every day for someone to save her, and the curtain was pulled back for you.

 

Hmm. Wow, Justamouse, you nailed me with this post. I'm going to bed now (12:30 am here in Jersey, you know), but this post sticks. Just, wow. I respect Tibbie's, Farrar's, and your viewpoint and advice. I'm going to think about it and pray about it.

 

And, you know, I want to be a friend to this mom! That's the funny part. Even the dog was gross -- had an abscess on its eye, with puss oozing out, sores all over, just gross. Who lives like this? If we hadn't gone to the house, we wouldn't have known....

 

The whole time my daughter was singing her Latin songs today (so cute), I was thinking about how different we are as homeschooling moms -- Latin 101 here, Creek Wading 101 there. I'm not posting out of a prideful spirit. I actually found the revelation of how they live to be completely heart-breaking.

[albeto]

I'm simply going to have to wrap my head around "radical unschooling," not as my choice, but as the choice of another mother. It's her choice, for her children. I like the freedom to make my choices for mine.

 

What you are describing isn't unschooling. It's not related to unschooling any more than it's related to homeschooling, or speaking English at home, or being American.

 

I wonder if you're misunderstanding what unschooling is based on this unrelated coincidence.

[Sahamamama]

What you are describing isn't unschooling. It's not related to unschooling any more than it's related to homeschooling, or speaking English at home, or being American.

 

I wonder if you're misunderstanding what unschooling is based on this unrelated coincidence.

 

What is it, then? The mother defines herself as an "unschooler." (I realize that doesn't make her so). She proudly tells any and all listeners that they don't use any curriculum, they unschool, just living and learning and going from day to day. She has a blog, in which she describes herself as an "unschooler." I don't dare link it, obviously.

 

I had a nicer picture in my head of how "it" looked. The reality was disappointing.

[albeto]

 

What is it, then? The mother defines herself as an "unschooler." (I realize that doesn't make her so). She proudly tells any and all listeners that they don't use any curriculum, they unschool, just living and learning and going from day to day. She has a blog, in which she describes herself as an "unschooler." I don't dare link it, obviously.

 

I had a nicer picture in my head of how "it" looked. The reality was disappointing.

 

As a social worker, you've been in houses like hers before, right? Even worse? Were they all unschoolers?

 

What I'm getting at is correlation does not equal causation.

[Incognito]

In our province we have two options: either be a registered home schooler, where you completely do your own thing (wade in the creek if you want.) Or enroll in a distributed learning program, where you are theoretically tested, follow provincial outcomes, do paper work, and so on. They give you about $1000 to go through DL, so that's more popular.

 

All the wade-in-the-creek types? They're _all_ with distributed learning. They all do that paperwork, report weekly, and every which other requirement.

 

tl;dr summary? I don't see that the regulation works. There's a big difference between passing a law ("no one should ever be fat! All children must learn to read!") and getting the desired result.

 

 

We probably live in the same province, but that has not been my experience with those I've met. Registering or Enrolling - both can do it poorly, both can do it well. I'm still only a couple years into the journey, but I've only met one person who sounded to me like they were very much neglecting to educate their kids, and they were registered only. They were a big proponent of registering only and were proud they didn't take the $1000, yet they were dead out of money and had illnesses that prevented them from educating their kids and they admitted it. They were afraid of government regulation so they were not doing DL. I'd be afraid of government regulation too if I was doing what they were doing, but they could have enrolled with an unschooling school and gotten away with everything (and then the child would have at least gotten $1000 worth of classes or books somewhere, which is better than nothing IMO).

 

 

I'd consider being for more regulation of homeschooling if I thought it could be carried out in a reasonable way that wouldn't place an unfair burden on homeschoolers and would actually change behavior. I just can't conceive of how that would happen. I'm familiar with states that test, but the scores you need are extremely low and I don't see it changing most people's behavior. I know some states require writing up a plan or keeping attendance, but this is data that can easily be just made up. I do a pretty good job homeschooling, but if I had to keep attendance, I'd just make it up. I'm familiar with states that do portfolios, but my anecdotal knowledge of that is that the portfolio evaluators are very uneven - most are fine, a few are ignorant of the law and bully people. It doesn't really alter what people do, it's just the time when you gather a few things and show them to the bureaucrat. I don't know what increased regulation that would change behavior would look like. Without that vision, to me the whole conversation is a moot point.

 

 

I think if you look at the model in British Columbia, you would have some ideas for how it could look. I think the model here at least provides an easy standard that everyone knows. People have their own ways of meeting the standard - some aim for meeting the provincial learning outcomes as their goal. Personally, I find the outcomes so basic for lower grade levels that we aim at other things and cover the outcomes through life. As the kids age, I understand the expected outcomes get more specific, but even then, the list isn't long enough to take over what we are learning (not through 3rd grade, anyways).

 

I don't want a certified teacher looking over stuff I do. Why? Because there are a lot of teachers who are anti homeschooling. And honestly, what can any person gather from a brief meeting with a student they never worked with?

 

 

Since I live in a place that has this, I can explain how it works here. You choose your school and teacher - people choose them to suit the style of learning they use. I wish there was a classical school, but that is another post. Anyways, we have one teacher we meet 3-4x a year, and I email updates about weekly. She'll email me a question if she has one, but she has a copy of the ToC's of the curriculum we're using, so she generally knows what we've done. She's chosen to be a home learning support teacher, so she isn't anti-homeschooling (although my support teacher has never homeschooled herself, so she does have a bit of a teacher-ie/school-ie way about her). She misses a lot about me and the kids since we only meet a few times a year, but she has gotten to know us and she is there if I have any questions. It is a positive relationship.

 

And as other people have said, in this very thread actually, the fact that the public schools suck doesn't absolve us of responsibility for our own kids. Just because the public schools can't meet a low standard doesn't mean we don't have to meet it either, and arguments like that do nothing for the hsing movement as a whole. The problems plaguing public schools are many and complex, and not all of them have to do with the actual schools. They also don't mean that it's impossible to give a child a simple reading assessment.

 

 

One thing I like about how our system works is that we have access to and are generally expected to meet the standards of the local public schools. They are vague and low (it seems to me), but they are clear and the organization one enrolls with helps one figure out how to meet the expected outcomes, if one is having trouble with it.

 

Sorry for the book, I just think the model here is fascinating - it has grown out of the fact that the government provides $$ for education of kids who live here, and that $$ is available to private schools as well as public, if the learning outcomes are being met. Something along the lines of 80% of homeschoolers choose to be regulated in this way (and if they don't want to, they don't have to).

[Deee]

I live in New South Wales, Australia. We have a reasonable amount of oversight. It still allows for unschoolers. The NSW Board of Studies (BoS) sends out an Authorised Person (AP), usually an experienced teacher employed on a contractual basis, to do home visits and check that we are covering the Key Learning Areas outlined in the NSW syllabus. While we don't have to match the NSW syllabus (we never have) we must show that we have covered the each of the KLAs adequately. In practice this means that we do history, science etc in the order I choose, not in the order taught in the local school, but that I keep an eye on the maths syllabus to make sure we don't have any holes. For language arts I keep to my own curriculum entirely. The AP looks at the list of work done and proposed, samples of the children's work, the area used for schooling and the resources available, and talks to the children about their experiences. First time homeschoolers can be given a maximum of 12 months, repeat applicants a maximum of 2 years. If your record keeping, proposals, etc are not up to scratch, you are given some sage advice and 3 months to sort yourself out before the next inspection. This has happened to a few people, but most get on fairly well. Our AP is a very experienced educator and I found her last visit really helpful and encouraging. There are people who aren't happy, mostly because of some perceived inconsistencies between APs in other areas.

 

Our homeschool group is about 50/50 book-work and unschoolers. Some of the unschoolers are registered using the above process, others fly under the radar (by law you should register but if you've never been in the State school system its easy to go unnoticed). The unschoolers I know are usually very earnest about their unschooling. In fact some are down-right arrogant about it and I know they think I am over the top (in comparison with some of your homeschools, mine would look like a holiday camp!). I generally leave them to their opinions, but I do commiserate with the posters who have talked about the intrusion of endless social activities into school time. The unschoolers have piles of free time and are often looking to fill it. We have limited time and lots of work to get through. Unfortunately, the biggest impact has been on my son, who is now 12. He's one of the older kids in the group, so has more school work, but he feels really ripped-off and is convinced that he's the only one who ever has to do anything. I am, therefore, a big meany. We have had the usually talks about potential, achievement, choices, etc. And we've had the one where he is told to just suck it up, but the unschoolers bumming around all day and proposing endless park dates does take its toll.

D

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

What is it, then? The mother defines herself as an "unschooler." (I realize that doesn't make her so). She proudly tells any and all listeners that they don't use any curriculum, they unschool, just living and learning and going from day today. She has a blog, in which she describes herself as an "unschooler." I don't dare link it, obviously.

 

I had a nicer picture in my head of how "it" looked. The reality was disappointing.

 

I used to be a radical unschooler. It didn't look like what you describe but I have a hard time disowning people like that because I'm certain they likely read the same blogs I did, had the same gurus they followed, etc. If I were to say they aren't really unschoolers I'd be pulling a trick Albeto might take issue with in another circumstance, the No True Scotsman fallacy many Christians like when faced with a group like the WBC.

 

I have no issue with you calling them unschoolers.

 

[G5052]

I'm a community college professor, and I homeschool in a moderately regulated state.

 

And there is no difference from my perspective between public school, private school, and homeschool in terms of the students I see. Just as many of the homeschooled students fail my classes as those from the other categories. Some are indeed unschooled and can't deal with the structure and deadlines of college. But some of my unschooled kids are completely ready to settle down and work too. Most of the homeschooled students do fine, but some don't. Because I also teach local homeschoolers in paid classes, I know which kids I've taught in homeschool classes who are going to do OK in college and which aren't. And thus far I've been 100% correct. College is not for everyone, but it is a mistake to tell everyone that you've got a college-prep program for your homeschool and then they hit the wall in the community college. I see it all the time. The percentage of homeschooled students needing remedial math or English is not too far below those in the other categories, and sadly the number of students who "graduate" from the remedial classes and go on to get a 2-year degree and then a 4-year degree is very, very small. Certainly the opportunities are there, but very few make it. The percentage of students who need no remedial work and go on to graduate is much, much higher.

 

And I'm not in favor of regulation because it doesn't pick up the stragglers. I know several "off the books" homeschoolers who have never registered. How are you going to find them unless you involve the already-overwhelmed county truancy officers who have openly said that they only track down registered public school students? And I've heard of a few parents who didn't handle standardized testing properly. In order to keep homeschooling, they were involved at some level in filing the circles so their kid would meet the standard. Or they picked an evaluator who took the money and wrote a letter without doing much. That sort of thing is going to keep going on unless the tests and evaluators are handled by the schools, and there's certainly no interest and money for that at this point in public education. And of course no guarantee that the school system would handle that properly either. Look at all of the public school testing scandals and how many students are passed on without much evaluation.

 

Mostly I keep my mouth shut though unless I'm asked. And usually no one does.

[Walking-Iris]

To apply that situation to all unschoolers is illogical. There are people living in nice houses high on coke in very well to-do neighborhoods who are mentally and physically abusive to their public schooled children. Oversight of their kid's education does nothing to help them. Social workers do nothing to help them. Why? Because their kids make great grades, are on the sports team, and their family appears very "nice." Another IRL anecdote. The very well known local family with the pastor father who sexually abused his children. And no one knows it went on but the grown children and a few of their close friends. Do I then say ALL suburbanites are coke addicts and physically abuse their kids? Do I then say ALL pastors are sexually abusing their kids? Or is it only the obviously poor people with kids who are struggling who are suspect?

 

About regulation in general, it makes absolutely no sense to be melodramatic and insist that assessments are the main way to insure that kids are not illiterate or able to add single digits.

 

Honestly if a person feels strongly about homeschool regulation there are steps they can take to work towards it. Go to your school board meetings, call your state government. You're free to do that in this country. People in this country are also free to educate their children without state involvement.

 

Disputing and bickering isn't going to change anything if one feels so strongly about some need for change. I agree with pp who have said that regulation would just cause more paperwork and box ticking. And I agree that it has done little if anything to prevent academic failure in public schools.

 

How many times has the media taken a bad case scenario and put it out there and given the false impression of homeschooling in general? Bad case scenarios make good headlines. No one cares about your generic run of the mill homeschooler who learned how to read chapter books this month. And honestly that is the majority of homeschoolers. People who are quietly raising and educating their children effectively.

 

Unschooling has been given a very bad rep because people pass around the stories of the bad case scenarios. No one cares about the generic unschooler quietly and effectively educating their children. Add to it that unschooling is on the extreme side of the spectrum of an already extreme side of a spectrum in education, and they really don't stand a chance.

 

If an environment is abusive, it's going to be regardless of income, or educational choices. Abusive situations need to be individually looked at. You can't take one family's outcome and apply it across the board like that. There are plenty of children sitting in b&m schools, some of them very good schools academically, who are living in abusive situations. The educational choice has little to do with it.

 

I grew up in an abusive environment, and I made straight A's and took AP classes in a great public school. Abusive situations and not ideal environments and academic failure do not always correlate.

 

OP---if you are worried about this particular homeschooler's situation, instead of coming online and declaring to the world her house as disgusting and worrying about your own reputation at your church, and interspersing your posts with a lot of melodramatic smilies, how about just ask the people of this forum for advice in how to help her?

 

There are plenty of unschoolers or former unschoolers on this forum. There are people on this forum who may have grew up in not ideal circumstances.

 

You may get to know the woman and the situation better. Houses do have structural damage at times that can be costly and difficult to repair. Teens can be difficult to parent. Not knowing the woman you talk about I really hesitate at jumping to the worse assumptions about it.

[warneral]

Unfortunately "Unschooling" to some equates to not educating. The unschoolers really should have chosen a more positive term for their educational philosophy. There are people who have hooked onto the term to give themselves the excuse to not educate their homeschooled children. Also, too many people in the public also look at the term Unschooling as a negative, non educating environment. These cases are not the actual Unschooling educating folks, but the line has become too blurry for people to see the marked difference.

[blondchen]

Unfortunately "Unschooling" to some equates to not educating. The unschoolers really should have chosen a more positive term for their educational philosophy. There are people who have hooked onto the term to give themselves the excuse to not educate their homeschooled children. Also, too many people in the public also look at the term Unschooling as a negative, non educating environment. These cases are not the actual Unschooling educating folks, but the line has become too blurry for people to see the marked difference.

 

I was just thinking about this exact point. The term "UN-schooling" can so easily be thought of as "NON-schooling", which can then be perceived as "NON-educating", and regardless of the good intentions of those who coined the term, it's causing a lot of negativity and misconception. In general, I think it's a bad idea to define yourself by what you're not doing, or by what you're against. And regarding parents who misunderstand or misuse the idea and really aren't even educating their children, I think that using the term "unschooling" can only make it worse.

 

I wonder if someone will eventually coin a more positive term for this educational philosophy.

[msjones]

In every walk of life there are slackers.

 

When I taught public school I had students from highly academic, focused, conscientious families. They were outstanding, high-achieving students.

 

In the same class I also had students whose parents didn't get up in the morning to help their 2nd grader to school. Parents who never set foot in the school once, who never looked in the child's backpack, who never did a bit of work at home with their child.

 

A government inspector would not change the second type of family into the first type. Some families just don't want to work hard.

 

I feel for their kids, but the government isn't going to change them.

[TracyP]

Yes they really should have picked a different term. There are those who do things very differently, but do a great job. There are those who literally do nothing at all. They are not the same at all.

 

Yeah, it is a loaded label at this point. I'm thinking that the unschoolers should get to keep their name while some others have to find a new name. Perhaps uneducators.

[G5052]

In every walk of life there are slackers.

 

When I taught public school I had students from highly academic, focused, conscientious families. They were outstanding, high-achieving students.

 

In the same class I also had students whose parents didn't get up in the morning to help their 2nd grader to school. Parents who never set foot in the school once, who never looked in the child's backpack, who never did a bit of work at home with their child.

 

A government inspector would not change the second type of family into the first type. Some families just don't want to work hard.

 

I feel for their kids, but the government isn't going to change them.

 

 

This is the bottom line. Just because you say that you are homeschooling doesn't mean that you're an involved parent. It seems contrary, but I've seen my share of cases where the parents weren't involved in homeschooling, even for little kids who couldn't be expected to teach themselves to read, check their math, etc. etc. And I've had teens that I've taught confess that they got through subjects by copying from the answer key when Mom was busy. Some did that on an ongoing basis and then end up in my college class utterly failing and in a panic. You can't go back and redo years of neglect easily.

 

And I always feel sad when I encounter a homeschooling parent who goes on and on about their college prep track when I know from interactions that the kid is going to end up in remedial math and/or English courses. To me that isn't college prep. But I never say anything unless asked. And as I stated earlier, the reality is that only a small percent of college students who need remedial math and/or English at the community college actually get beyond that. I don't teach those classes, but know a number of the professors who do, and they some of the best professors around. Their desire to bring these students up despite overwhelming odds is inspiring.

 

When we had martial arts at a gymnastics studio, I used to hear the public and private school parents having the same type of conversations though. Everyone was on a top-flight academic track, from what they said. And I seriously doubt that.

 

Remember the Lake Wobegon statement: "...where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

[*Michelle*]

Maybe a better term would be life-learning. It's suppose to be child-led, right? A child would be learning, not schooling. Unschooling always sounded like deschooling to me, like something that takes place between pulling your child from school and beginning to homeschool. Undoing school.

[albeto]

I used to be a radical unschooler. It didn't look like what you describe but I have a hard time disowning people like that because I'm certain they likely read the same blogs I did, had the same gurus they followed, etc. If I were to say they aren't really unschoolers I'd be pulling a trick Albeto might take issue with in another circumstance, the No True Scotsman fallacy many Christians like when faced with a group like the WBC.

 

I have no issue with you calling them unschoolers.

 

No "No True Scotsman" from me. I have no issue with the OP calling them unschoolers either. I suggest their circumstance is not a consequence of unschooling, but a coincidence to it. The fact that the conditions the OP is describing is not limited to unschoolers, and is not common among unschoolers supports that.

[albeto]

 

Yes they really should have picked a different term. There are those who do things very differently, but do a great job. There are those who literally do nothing at all. They are not the same at all.

 

(Wendy, I don't mean to pick on you but use your post as a convenient summary of much discussion on this topic. I hope you understand.)

 

I could make the same argument that *some* homeschoolers are not really homeschoolers but are brainwashing factories. Their children are not allowed to be educated but instead are brainwashed into believing a mythology is actually true and of the most importance in all the world. I could suggest that not only is their education neglected, but ultimately this is abusive in that it limits the freedom and liberty of these children for life (ie, homemaker/mother/wife only). I doubt very much there would be support on this forum to suggest they change their name from "homeschoolers" to "brainwashing factories" just because I interpret it that way.

[albeto]

As I said, I don't care what anyone calls anything.

 

I saw that JUST AFTER I posted!

 

D'oh! I felt so bad that I had to get up and start making a cup of coffee.

 

Some people do brainwash their kids. They don't need to homeschool them to do that though.

 

I hoped to make that same point with regards to unschooling and living in a garbage heap.

 

You can pick on me. I don't mind. LOL

 

You're a good sport.

 

 

^_^

[Mommy22alyns]

Okay, I have not read this entire thread, but what the OP's acquaintances are doing does not sound so much like unschooling, but actively hindering education. I don't know any unschoolers personally, but I got the impression that - done well - there is a lot of educational material available. Strewing. Whether the kids avail themselves of it or not may vary (and I don't necessarily agree), but it's there. What OP described - a child crying and asking for an education and it being actively denied - shouldn't be called anything but neglect.

 

FTR, I don't care to have anyone interfering with how I choose to educate my kids, but they're far from illiterate and uneducated. I feel that it is MY responsibility and no one else's to make sure that they're educated. I take that responsibility very seriously. Could I "handle" regulations as in would my girls pass tests or whatever? Sure. But I don't want that. One reason I homeschool is to avoid the test-driven mindset.

 

Anyway...

[swellmomma]

We have regulations here, and home visits etc and still the unschoolers do what you are listing the ones there do. I spoke with one mom (we used to be good friends, and she is a former boss, but we still talk) asking about her high school plans for her oldest. He is 2 weeks younger than my oldest. They have no plans, just living life. Now that scares me. I had sat down with the college admissions people at 6 different college/universities(they were all at conference) and an equal amount of 1 year bible colleges, talked with the guy from the apprenticeship board, and with a Canadian forces recruiter. I have done this 2 years in a row now.

 

In my province there is no such thing as a mommy made transcript or diploma. They are only awarded by the gov't for students that have passed the provincial exams. Of all those schools I talked to TWO allow for non matriculated students to apply. They require a portfolio, letters of recommendation and passing of the entrance exams. None of that is attainable by just living life. The others require a provincially awarded transcript in the appropriate courses to even apply. Searching online after learning that I learned that EVERY college/university/trade school in the province other than those 2 are that way. It is not standard for students to leave the province for unversity. Especially if you live in or near Edmonton which has 3 universities, and a dozen or so other colleges. The 1 year bible colleges need the appropriate transcript, plus the extra stuff. Even mature students (students applying as adult learners, which I think starts at 25, need the required courses, so even waiting is not an option).

 

Canadian forces requires 10th grade on the transcript, plus entrance requirements. So again you can not just do nothing, you need to have something approved by the gov't for any future.

 

There is one distance ed college that people think they will have their kids start at and then transfer the credits to a B&M college but increasingly the colleges are refusing to accept those credits, because the courses are as such a low level of instruction, they are not really equivalent.

 

Even after I explained all of this to her, she still said they would unschool right through. God would lead the way to showing where he should go for post secondary.

 

In other provinces unschooling would not hinder post secondary nearly so much but here it really does. And with school boards like the one I am with. They do the twice a year meetings, and yet in the 3 years we have been with them they have never asked to see work samples. They focus on the character of teh child rather than academics. They promote classical education, and offer a ton of online classes for it, but all the unschoolers sign up with them because they don't have to prove anything other than the child's character is developing properly.

 

So increased regulation does not in anyway prevent cases like you mentioned from happening.

 

Another family I know and have for the last decade. Radical unschoolers, the older boys eventually asked to live with their grandparents so they could go to school. They have learning disabilities and could not teach themselves things, and the mom was firm in the belief that if they wanted to learn they must do it themselves. They have been with the grandparents for 2-3 years now and are doing well in ps, and finally have a chance at a future. The other kids, well she picked up and moved them to the dominican republic where they hang out with the locals and play in the river all day. I think the girl did 1 distance ed class this past year, because she wants to come back and do university in Alberta and can't without it. The mom was lamenting about it once, about how the requirements of it were cramping her style because it meant the daughter wasn't available to just go hang out all the time when she was doing that class.

 

I'm all for varied l methods, I know of one unschooling family that I wish would adopt me. They are unschoolers until high school age and she was big on strewing and creating a solid learning environment. At high school they either go to B&M or do distance ed. So there can even be a place for unschoolers in a regulated province but the ones that want to be radical unschoolers right through high school here are setting their kids up for failure. And even the regulations don't prevent that.

[warneral]

 

(Wendy, I don't mean to pick on you but use your post as a convenient summary of much discussion on this topic. I hope you understand.)

 

I could make the same argument that *some* homeschoolers are not really homeschoolers but are brainwashing factories. Their children are not allowed to be educated but instead are brainwashed into believing a mythology is actually true and of the most importance in all the world. I could suggest that not only is their education neglected, but ultimately this is abusive in that it limits the freedom and liberty of these children for life (ie, homemaker/mother/wife only). I doubt very much there would be support on this forum to suggest they change their name from "homeschoolers" to "brainwashing factories" just because I interpret it that way.

 

There's a way to shut down a conversation! Since we are expressing extreme views, I think it is abuse to teach a child that the God who created them and the Christ who has the potential to save them is a myth. Eternal salvation and all of that jazz (which is Truth). But hey different strokes.

 

What most of us were talking about were apples to your orange. We were talking about *not* teaching.

[albeto]

There's a way to shut down a conversation! Since we are expressing extreme views, I think it is abuse to teach a child that the God who created them and the Christ who has the potential to save them is a myth. Eternal salvation and all of that jazz (which is Truth). But hey different strokes.

 

What most of us were talking about were apples to your orange. We were talking about *not* teaching.

 

Before this misunderstanding gets too far to reel back in, let me try and explain again. Mine was an analogy, nothing more. I'm not actually advocating anyone change their label to "brainwashing factory" instead of "homeschooler. I'm suggesting the reason we don't change names in one direction should be applied to other directions. I am not actually commenting on yours, or anyone's homeschooling tactics or intent or value.

 

 

Edited to add: There are lots of topics going on in this thread. The idea that unschooling = neglect is just one, the one I commented on. This is apples to apples in that I provided an analogy with the hypothetical claim that religious homeschooling = neglect. In the same way you reject that argument, I reject the unschooling = neglect argument. I hope that makes more sense now. This is really a tiny part of this topic, and not at all the most important to the subject at hand. One might consider it a footnote to the thread, nothing more.

[Matryoshka]

Okay, I have not read this entire thread, but what the OP's acquaintances are doing does not sound so much like unschooling, but actively hindering education. I don't know any unschoolers personally, but I got the impression that - done well - there is a lot of educational material available. Strewing. Whether the kids avail themselves of it or not may vary (and I don't necessarily agree), but it's there. What OP described - a child crying and asking for an education and it being actively denied - shouldn't be called anything but neglect.

 

:iagree: I have a friend who considers herself a die-hard unschooler, whose ds is off to college this year and I think will be very successful. But most of his high school education was outside classes, not much different from what people here do. How is that unschooling? The mom says "that's what he wanted to do" - so it's still child-led, so she still considers herself an unschooler. If the kid is asking, nay, begging for educational materials, classes, or even school, and being denied, then that's not child-led schooling, which I think is supposed to be the main goal of "unschooling".

 

On the other topic, I live in what is supposedly a high-regulation state. But I don't have to hire an evaluator, or ever meet with anyone at all. I do not have to submit to testing. I can choose a method of evaluation - progress report, portfolio, or yes, standardized testing, but that's one of the options, not a requirement. I know someone could just flat-out-lie on their progress report, but those are the kind of people that no amount of regulation is going to help. I'd say those type of people are more likely just to go underground. But I think it might be a bit helpful keeping the "life keeps getting in the way" types, who mean well but are disorganized, to stay on track knowing they need to have something put together at the end of the year (or test). I don't find this level of regulation to be intrusive at all - much less intrusive than having to meet (and worse, pay for!) with an evaluator.

 

ETA: I have met the other kind of unschooler too. In fact, one of the first "real" homeschooling families I met was like that (down to the icky house). She was underground/not reporting. I took it as a lesson as to how I didn't want to homeschool...

[swellmomma]

You have home visits?! I would not like that.

 

Yes, we have 1 at the start of the year to outline our plan/goals for the year and one at the end to evaluate the year. WHen we were with other boards (you can choose whatever homeschool board to register with that you want as long as you register) they actually looked at work samples, one of them even had the kids do oral reading too. This one asks if we met our goals, what the childs weaknesses and strengths are and we rate areas of character development on a 5 pt scale. Stupid over all but easy enough.

 

If we were registered blended there would be a midyear contact too but that one could be done by phone or email. If fully aligned there would be 2 visits plus weekly emails or phone calls with their assigned teachers

[warneral]

And this is exactly why I don't want anyone nosing through what I do. I don't want someone telling me or my kids stuff like this.

 

But this leads to the heart of this issue, IMO. We are talking about teaching, but we are really talking about differences in personal values and philosophies.

 

I understand and agree (not wanting people to tell my kids certain things). I typically don't throw my opinion out there as I know each person has their own belief system and I'm not going to change their mind on the internet.

[Beth in Mint Hill]

...the evidence of the quality of education from the system with the highest gov't oversight, the government school system commonly referred to as public school. If one believes that gov't oversight produces better quality education for students, the evidence should be found/affirmed in the outcome of education of their students.... )

 

Yes! This is exactly what I was about to say. I am very disturbed by the homeschoolers who do not accomplish anything in the way of academics, but the govt. has not proved that they know how to remedy incompetence or ignorance... not even when they warehouse the kids all day! So government "oversight" - or should I say "blindness" is not the answer.

 

 

 

 

[Deee]

In Australia, unschoolers generally prefer the term "natural learners." I think its wonderfully optimistic. Honestly, some of it looks fabulous: the kids are happy, have loads of free time and join in every activity going. But my son would never choose to do grammar or write an essay, Monopoly is not enough maths for a child with an engineering bent, and reading a whole lot of history and science books is no substitute for proper analysis. So, nice to watch but not for us.

D

[swellmomma]

 

Do they at least give you money?

 

 

not directly, but yes. Like they don't cut a check to the parent, the money goes to your school board and you can either use purchase orders or submit receipts for reimbursement. The amount varies depending on how you register, the more gov't involvement you allow the higher the funding.

 

It all sounds so stifling or whatever but really it isn't. At least not for families already going about their business teaching their kids. I mean my 1st visit of the year doesn't usually happen until November with this school board, I offer a cup of coffee to the facilitator talk about our goals and send him on his way. Year end happens early June, I put on the coffee again, review our year, submit paperwork for high school credits (those are awarded by the gov't not the parent), sign my intent to homeschool the following year and send him on his way.

 

It takes maybe 1-1.25 hours out of my year to jump through those hoops. In exchange this past year I was funded $825 x 3 school aged children. That is a huge reason that as a single parent I can homeschool. I work to pay the bills, but our school curriculum is thanks to that funding. Next year I have 4 school aged kids already registered to homeschool.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

No "No True Scotsman" from me. I have no issue with the OP calling them unschoolers either. I suggest their circumstance is not a consequence of unschooling, but a coincidence to it. The fact that the conditions the OP is describing is not limited to unschoolers, and is not common among unschoolers supports that.

 

 

I can agree with that.

[PentecostalMom]

I haven't read all of the responses, just a few. I will say that we have lived all over the world and in various states where the regulations are different and I agree. I think there should be something. Something uniform, the same for all states, not changing from state-to-state. That, in itself, is ridiculous! I think a "portfolio" is silly because like I did read, anyone can pull a few things together and make it look good. The dumbest thing I have encountered is attendance. Really?? Attendance?? They live here, we do some sort of educational activity every day. Even in states where that required number was three hours daily was still ridiculous. The simplest answer is probably an annual standardized test. We all know how mush hsers lovvvveee standardized tests, don't we? I am not fond of them either. However, for the sake of some of the kids that I see, there has to be an answer. I just don't know what it is.

[Incognito]

 

Do you have to pay this person?

 

That doesn't sound too horrible except I don't exactly want to pay for it.

 

 

I don't pay this person, and I get $1000/yr for books and activities - but I don't actually get the money myself, my "school" gets money, and from that they allow me to order things or bill classes.

[NASDAQ]

We probably live in the same province, but that has not been my experience with those I've met. Registering or Enrolling - both can do it poorly, both can do it well. I'm still only a couple years into the journey, but I've only met one person who sounded to me like they were very much neglecting to educate their kids, and they were registered only. They were a big proponent of registering only and were proud they didn't take the $1000, yet they were dead out of money and had illnesses that prevented them from educating their kids and they admitted it. They were afraid of government regulation so they were not doing DL. I'd be afraid of government regulation too if I was doing what they were doing, but they could have enrolled with an unschooling school and gotten away with everything (and then the child would have at least gotten $1000 worth of classes or books somewhere, which is better than nothing IMO).

 

 

I have hardly met anyone who is just registered. But the people who decide not to do formal reading or math and to pursue an unschooling philosophy, even when that led to very late reading, have been enrolled. In a sense, like almost everyone else.

 

I should clarify though that I've never met anyone with the type of problems that the OP clarified existed here -- filthy house and so on. Just people who absolutely do not teach reading or math formally, and do not intend to, and are comfortable with the acquisition of math and reading skills coming very late.

 

Of course, our provincial outcomes are pretty . . . idk what. Vague? Yeah. Vague.

[happymomofboys]

My state requires:

 

An annual individualized home instruction plan including a list of textbooks and materials or a plan of instruction for each subject

Quarterly progress reports including # of hours of instruction and a description of material covered in each subject

Annual assessment in the form of a narrative (which I write) or standardized test score (33rd percentile is "passing")

 

As long as I submit these documents on time, no questions are asked. Someone who wasn't doing any schooling could just write something vague (or flat out lie) and as long as they meet the letter of the regulations there's nothing the superintendent could do about it. My point is that more regulation isn't going to have any effect on what slacking parents do. It just means more paperwork, meetings, tests, or other general hassles for those of us who are busy educating our kids and don't have the time for it.

[TracyP]

As long as I submit these documents on time, no questions are asked. Someone who wasn't doing any schooling could just write something vague (or flat out lie) and as long as they meet the letter of the regulations there's nothing the superintendent could do about it. My point is that more regulation isn't going to have any effect on what slacking parents do. It just means more paperwork, meetings, tests, or other general hassles for those of us who are busy educating our kids and don't have the time for it.

 

 

And not only for the parents. Someone has to keep track of all this paperwork. MN loosened its regs a bit last year. It was a very bi-partisan decision and this was one of the arguments. A larger paperwork burden on homeschooler also means a larger paperwork burden on the already stretched very thin school districts.

[Mommyfaithe]

I have witnessed it as well. However, what I have seen as even more prevalent than "no schoolers" is co-op level work as "fabulous" while I wouldn't even qualify it as mediocre. In all my yrs of homeschooling, the number of homeschoolers that have the same level of academics we do could be counted on 1 hand.

 

That said, I do not believe the answer is regulation. I have lived in states with more regulation and in ones with less regulation. I have not seen any difference in the homeschoolers that I have been around. At All. These attitudes originate in the family.

 

 

This is so true. I am in a pretty regulated state, which mostly means having boxes to check. IOW, even though there are checks in place, the regulation is so vague, that it can be construed in different ways. Although it is strict on the surface, the system is so broken, they do not really have time or inclination to help with the actual education end and just make sure all our i's are dotted and t's crossed.

 

I have met all kinds of homeschoolers in our area from the traditional school at home to the most laid back unschooler and every place in between < even some rigorous unschoolers whose kids are brilliant!>.

 

Regulation, or lack of really has nothing to do with the quality of the homeschool. What makes a difference is the parents, and their desire ( or lack of desire) to provide an exemplary education and determining the means to that end no matter what curricula they do or do not use. I have met kids who can not read in both the traditional and unschooler environment. The question was never method per se' or regulation, or even if the kid is in a brick and mortar school for that matter....it is whether the parents value education, if they read to their kids, surround them with books and learning experiences, talk to them, teach them, and of course value them. There is no choice of laziness in this parenting thing, yet too many parents take that route because it seems easier. Sigh.

Faithe

[Halcyon]

I have lived in what is considered a very regulated state (NYS), and one (Florida) that is not very regulated (especially when you homeschool under an umbrella school, as I do, and only need to report attendance). There were really no differences in terms of the number of unschoolers vs. more academic schoolers. The difference, simply put, was paperwork. The unschoolers in NYC could always make what they did sound like they were learning (and sometimes, they really were!) and the more "academic" students (some of whom I know for a fact were doing nothing) could always make it look like they were doing the requirements as well.

 

I don't think more regulation is the answer, but I do think in obvious cases of educational neglect, which often comes along with other sorts of neglect, there needs to be a mechanism to help these kids, just like in any other neglect situation.

[Mommyfaithe]

My state requires:

 

An annual individualized home instruction plan including a list of textbooks and materials or a plan of instruction for each subject

Quarterly progress reports including # of hours of instruction and a description of material covered in each subject

Annual assessment in the form of a narrative (which I write) or standardized test score (33rd percentile is "passing")

 

As long as I submit these documents on time, no questions are asked. Someone who wasn't doing any schooling could just write something vague (or flat out lie) and as long as they meet the letter of the regulations there's nothing the superintendent could do about it. My point is that more regulation isn't going to have any effect on what slacking parents do. It just means more paperwork, meetings, tests, or other general hassles for those of us who are busy educating our kids and don't have the time for it.

 

Yup, we are in the same state. Box checking. It is actually ridiculous. The system is more interested in those boxes than the actual education of children. Kinda sickening.

 

[ailysh]

I could make the same argument that *some* homeschoolers are not really homeschoolers but are brainwashing factories. Their children are not allowed to be educated but instead are brainwashed into believing a mythology is actually true and of the most importance in all the world. I could suggest that not only is their education neglected, but ultimately this is abusive in that it limits the freedom and liberty of these children for life (ie, homemaker/mother/wife only). I doubt very much there would be support on this forum to suggest they change their name from "homeschoolers" to "brainwashing factories" just because I interpret it that way.

 

You always have such interesting input. I bet you win all your arguments. And I mean that in a complementary way. My husband says I win all our arguments but I can admit it isn't due to rational thinking and clear communication. :rolleyes: Persistence, maybe.

 

Sorry to post off topic, but that is kind of the way this thread is going.

 

ANYWAY, I live in a testing/evaluation state, and I'm fine with it. I would do testing even if it wasn't required.