this article on homeschool accountability was in my local paper this morning

[regentrude]

 My point was that teens should be shouldering a great deal of that responsibility by the time they are in high school. And I think this kid is no exception. If there was the slightest way he had the means to self educate he should have been doing just that. Not waiting for his parents to spoon feed him knowledge.

 

If we apply the same logic we can say that every teen who is graduating from public high school uneducated, functionally illiterate, with abysmal math skills is at fault for not having self educated. Right? Because they should have taken responsibility, found resources and taught themselves writing and algebra. They should not have waited for school to spoon feed them knowledge.

We do not even have to complain about the quality of schools anymore - if it is so easy, why can't they all teach themselves?

 

If we criticize that public schools graduate students from high school with an insufficient education, the exact same criticism must be permitted if the student leaves a home school with insufficient education.

 

Either we believe that students are solely responsible - and then we don't have to complain about the sorry state of schools - or we acknowledge that students need help being educated, by schools or parents, and then it does not matter whether it was a public or home school that left the kid with an education that is below what is considered standard in this day and age (and what would not even pass the minimum graduation requirements of any state.) The student was not complaining about not being taught multivariable calculus - he was complaining that he was not taught 8th/9th grade math!

[milovany]

We just started reading Carry On, Mr. Bowditch again today (third time for me, first time for some of my kids).  I love this book.  It seems like the boy in the article linked in the OP "sailed by ash breeze"  and there's nothing wrong with that.  He needs to stop his complaining about what his parents provided for him -- or didn't as the case may be -- and be glad (Internally) that he's been able to accomplish what he has.  Be thankful and move on. 

[PeacefulChaos]

 

What if they didn't know?  Seriously.  What if they didn't?

 

 

I highly doubt they didn't.  Sorry.  But in our area there is such a wide array of homeschoolers.  Most of them aren't classically minded like we are, but I know for a fact there was one who was home educating her children VERY classically at the time he (Josh) was high school age.  I highly doubt they didn't know each other.

The dad also said in the article that he was drawn to homeschooling because of families around him learning other things that weren't as traditionally educational (book-learning, so to speak).  Which leads me to believe that they did purposely choose this path for their children's education.

 

Indeed. He has done better than most in my state who graduate from public school.

 

 

I also think many here are giving way way too much credit to assuming public schools would have helped him with college. Many don't. Despite my high scores, obvious desperate boredom, and completely uninvolved parents, my school never gave me any help whatsoever in any career or education planning. Not once. Of course, they never gave me algebra or biology either.

 

 

YES.

Apparently the part was missed earlier where I said that, in general, BCPS is not a great school.  There aren't really ANY in the area.  I am almost positive it wouldn't have done any better.

I'm not guessing about that.  I KNOW that.  I know people at EVERY school here.  

[Joker]

We just started reading Carry On, Mr. Bowditch again today (third time for me, first time for some of my kids).  I love this book.  It seems like the boy in the article "sailed by ash breeze."  Nothing wrong with that.  He needs to stop his complaining about what his parents provided for him -- or didn't as the case may be -- and be glad (Internally) that he's been able to accomplish what he has.  Be thankful and move on. 

 

He's not just 'complaining' about what he missed. He's saying he sees a problem with certain parts of the law regarding regulation. He was lucky that he had no LDs and was able to figure it all out. He is now helping his siblings. What about those other kids who don't have an older sibling to help them? What about those kids who just aren't as smart as he is? He's actually trying to help others. Why are so many overlooking that? I don't think he should just be thankful he's okay and move on if he sees an actual problem. He's facing it head on and trying to help others who might face it in the future or who are facing it now. Don't most of us want that for our children? Don't we want them to be able to see a problem and try to fix it or try to make it better?

 

[Parrothead]

If we apply the same logic we can say that every teen who is graduating from public high school uneducated, functionally illiterate, with abysmal math skills is at fault for not having self educated. Right? Because they should have taken responsibility, found resources and taught themselves writing and algebra. They should not have waited for school to spoon feed them knowledge.

We do not even have to complain about the quality of schools anymore - if it is so easy, why can't they all teach themselves?

 

If we criticize that public schools graduate students from high school with an insufficient education, the exact same criticism must be permitted if the student leaves a home school with insufficient education.

 

Either we believe that students are solely responsible - and then we don't have to complain about the sorry state of schools - or we acknowledge that students need help being educated, by schools or parents, and then it does not matter whether it was a public or home school that left the kid with an education that is below what is considered standard in this day and age (and what would not even pass the minimum graduation requirements of any state.) The student was not complaining about not being taught multivariable calculus - he was complaining that he was not taught 8th/9th grade math!

Big difference between solely responsible and greatly responsible. I believe I used the later term.

 

How many teens do you know who have make it later in life by not being self-motivated and taking responsibility for themselves by working for their education as teens?

[milovany]

He's not just 'complaining' about what he missed. He's saying he sees a problem with certain parts of the law regarding regulation. He was lucky that he had no LDs and was able to figure it all out. He is now helping his siblings. What about those other kids who don't have an older sibling to help them? What about those kids who just aren't as smart as he is? He's actually trying to help others. Why are so many overlooking that? I don't think he should just be thankful he's okay and move on if he sees an actual problem. He's facing it head on and trying to help others who might face it in the future or who are facing it now. Don't most of us want that for our children? Don't we want them to be able to see a problem and try to fix it or try to make it better?

 

 

Surely, if there's truly a problem.  Not all agree that there is.  My kids don't write essays for the most part either, and full-on algebra is not required in our homeschool. There will always be "gaps" in one's education; we have to pick and choose where the gaps might be.  I graduated as a top-level student with 3rd and 4th year math, science, foreign language, college prep. English, and then cum laude from a four-year university. Very little of it helps me very much in my practical day-to-day life, and I had huge gaps in areas that WOULD have helped me more, and given me a more well-rounded education. As a result, our focus at home is far different from what I experienced (I know this is a classical education website, but not everyone here is educating classically and we're one family that's not; it's pretty different from what we want for our kids).  If one of our kids needs to go to college for a degree, we'll help them get themselves there.  We're not aiming for that as a matter of course.  And yet, our kids are far more capable and well-rounded than I think I was at their age.  If they want to master something or pursue a goal, they know to go ahead and do that.  We'll help as able (although truthfully, we're not always able to financially or time-wise).

[melmichigan]

“I agree there needs to be in place accountability,†Clarence Powell said.

 

I find it funny that we are arguing educational accountability of a parent who is quoted as saying it's needed. He never argued that point in the article. I also wonder about a lot of the comments referring to the parents, the father's comments, speaking as the head of the family, are right there. I see no need to speculate on them.

[Parrothead]

“I agree there needs to be in place accountability,†Clarence Powell said.

 

I find it funny that we are arguing educational accountability of a parent who is quoted as saying it's needed. He never argued that point in the article. I also wonder about a lot of the comments referring to the parents, the father's comments, speaking as the head of the family, are right there. I see no need to speculate on them.

Just because this one family may (or may not) need an outside source for accountability does not mean all families who use the religious exemption do. If a family feels the need there are other ways to go about accomplishing that. Umbrella schools come to mind as one option.

[melmichigan]

Just because this one family may (or may not) need an outside source for accountability does not mean all families who use the religious exemption do. If a family feels the need there are other ways to go about accomplishing that. Umbrella schools come to mind as one option.

True, and I've stated as much up thread. :)

[jhschool]

If we apply the same logic we can say that every teen who is graduating from public high school uneducated, functionally illiterate, with abysmal math skills is at fault for not having self educated. Right? Because they should have taken responsibility, found resources and taught themselves writing and algebra. They should not have waited for school to spoon feed them knowledge.

We do not even have to complain about the quality of schools anymore - if it is so easy, why can't they all teach themselves?

 

If we criticize that public schools graduate students from high school with an insufficient education, the exact same criticism must be permitted if the student leaves a home school with insufficient education.

 

Either we believe that students are solely responsible - and then we don't have to complain about the sorry state of schools - or we acknowledge that students need help being educated, by schools or parents, and then it does not matter whether it was a public or home school that left the kid with an education that is below what is considered standard in this day and age (and what would not even pass the minimum graduation requirements of any state.) The student was not complaining about not being taught multivariable calculus - he was complaining that he was not taught 8th/9th grade math!

I think if you go to a bad school, it is indeed your job to self-educate.  Teens are capable

of doing a lot, including self-education.  I don't think it's the sole responsibility of schools

to spoon-feed people knowledge or education.  Most schools try--but I think the individual should take charge as well, especially if the school is lacking in some way.

These are teens, not little kids.

 

I went to what was considered

an excellent high school (still had lots of failures such as Chemistry and Physics)--yet learned thermodynamics senior year, without the help of the

school.  I wrote poetry, read books the school didn't teach, and kept up my three languages,

separate from the school.  I composed songs and sang them on my guitar.  Most of us

probably did things the school didn't require us to do, because we wanted to.

 

My parents never even heard of the SAT, and yet I found out what it was, paid for it myself

from money I made myself, sent all my applications to colleges with no help (paid for the

fees myself), and got into a good college with no guidance or help from my parents.  Dad even

said he was considering "not letting me go."  Hm...guess not, dad.

 

I do think teens can be responsible for a lot of their own education.

I do not think anyone should wait for his/her parents or for his/her school to spoon-feed them

anything.  Teens are smart and capable.  They can choose who to be, with or without school.

 

 

Our local public school is excellent academically so I don't bash it very much.  They have a lot of

drugs which is one of the reasons we keep DS away.  (Also my homeschool is even

better academically.)  I just think Unschooling is a valid homeschooling method and should

be respected.  (We no longer Unschool BTW--unfortunately maybe?)

 

If DS went to public school he would be taking SAT Subject tests, APs even if they

weren't offered, and learning more than what is required in mathematics.  He would decide

which tests he would take and study for them.  He would be

figuring out what extra resources he needs and getting them.  He would pursue his

own interests whether the school offered it or not.  He would pursue his own interests

whether I let him or not.  I guess I'd chip in for private tutors but he'd be leading the way.

 

 

Maybe it's because we unschooled for so

many years that he has had his own drive for years.

Teens can figure out all sorts of things on their own.  It's not that difficult if they really want to.

They are almost grown up, not babies.

 

I guess the real question is, are we prepared to say parents should be allowed to Unschool.

 

I'm with Chucki that students should take responsibility.  And I am adding that yes, if your

school is bad, you have to step up and educate yourself as well.  There is no excuse for not

learning if you truly want to learn, schooled or homeschooled.

[goldberry]

 

 

Lastly, even if they hadn't taken the religious exemption option in VA, most likely there would have been zero issues -- as VA only requires a person meet the 4th stanine on standardized testing (which is below average).  

 

Ouch!  Colorado requires 13th, and I thought that was ridiculously low, assuming no LDs.  (That would be learning disabilities, not Latter-Day-Saints! ;) )

[Lisa R.]

For all the people defending these parents, I have a question. Why not just take a break from teaching your high schooler and providing curriculum, and put responsibility on your teen to figure out high school? I'm not being snarky. If it is such a good idea, it seems like it's a lot easier--at least for the parent. 

[milovany]

For all the people defending these parents, I have a question. Why not just take a break from teaching your high schooler and providing curriculum, and put responsibility on your teen to figure out high school? I'm not being snarky. If it is such a good idea, it seems like it's a lot easier--at least for the parent. 

 

Many unschoolers, eclectic and relaxed homeschoolers do just that.  It's not that they teach and teach until high school and then quit, but they've been schooling that way already for the most part.  They just continue on with something they feel has been working.  Our (middle and high school aged) kids have learned more, I think, from the learning projects they've taken on themselves than from the "table time" I've had them do.  The Teenage Liberation Handbook, Guerilla Learning, and all that. 

[LucyStoner]

The fact that many children get a poor education does not mitigate the damage of any one specific child's poor education. Each individual case is still a tragedy. I suppose I should be allowed to starve or not clothe my sons and they should just self teach themselves how to weave fabric from dryer lint or something and sew and find food. Parents do have responsibilities, not just rights, with respect to their children.

 

My son read very, very early too. I didn't have to teach him, he just read. I don't think the parents deserve any credit for his success because he happened to be an early reader.

[kiwik]

But if a teen is raised with no knowledge of WHAT is expected of him, no intentional instruction, no guidance in study skills, no "hey, this is the sequence you need to take in order to succeed in what you want to do"... no INTENTIONAL EDUCATION... ever - how is he supposed to KNOW how to go about taking charge of his education? How is he supposed to know what to study, when, how to come by these resources?

We aren't talking about a teen who was intentionally guided in the younger years, by parents who attempted to educate him through the teen years, but "slacked off".

He seems to have tried pretty hard to manage his education and in the end to have suceeded.

 

I would say 16 year old should be able to have an equal say in whether he attends school or home schools. Here 16 is the legal school leaving age so it isn't really up to the parents any more. I suppose they could kick him out of the house bit here that would entitle him to a payment that would just be enough to live. They didn't throw him out when he attended community college though.

 

I think he is genuinely concerned about his siblings. Whether we think his concern is justified or not doesn't alter its validity.

[Laura Corin]

This post still encompasses my feelings on this issue.

 

L

[Guest submarines]

I read the article carefully, and I can't stop thinking about his responses. Something just doesn't add up here. My current conclusion is that the bright and idealistic young man is used by the media for political purposes, and he might not even realize it.

[Laura Corin]

I do get the sentiment regarding the issue of who gets to decide what is the right way to go about things and what subjects one is absolutely supposed to learn.  I mean really is not teaching a kid algebra the most abusive and neglectful thing a parent can do?  What if they don't see the value in it?  Why should my values be theirs?

 

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate.  I have my own set of values and they include education.  I value education.  But I'm not sure I feel others who don't are wrong or bad.  I don't want people to tell me what I should value.  For example, I'm not religious.  Some people value religion quite a bit.  It's everything to them.  I would not want to be forced to teach my kids religion.

 

For me it goes back to not closing doors.  Is Algebra the be all and end all?  Definitely not.  But if a child were to reach 18 without learning Algebra then doors are closed, or at least the gap to squeeze through is narrowed.  Yes, the young adult can now do remedial classes and still get into university, but stage of life, money, other responsibilities make that much harder to do then than learning at 14.

 

I'm sure that someone could say that I closed doors by not, for example, putting my boys into riding lessons when they were small.  But society has decided, for good or ill, that (in the UK's case) to get most jobs you have to pass a maths exam that includes algebra, as well as an English exam.  And that would include managing a riding stable.

 

L

[Murphy101]

While I agree with Laura Corin, I also disagree.

 

I tend to educate like LC. I work very hard on keeping doors open.

 

But I don't necessarily think that closing doors to take a less trodden path is a sign of bad parenting/education.

 

And I don't necessarily think not having it as easy as they think other people have it is bad parenting either. I'm not obligated to make their life easier.

 

And I don't think I'm *obligated* to give my kids anything beyond survival needs, though like many parents I strive to give considerable more. My desire to give them more does not entitle them to demand it. (and no, I don't expect them to grovel for anything either.)

 

We all suffer for the choices our parents make. That's life. For every kid whining that they had to work extra hard to go to Georgetown, (Seriously, I can't get over that. Boo freaking hoo.) there's ten whining that mommy and daddy put too much pressure on them to go to college and made them "waste time" in high school to take classes they "will never use as adults" and dropping out of even the cc even though they had straight As at a decent public school. These have been common complaints for at least a couple generations now. And we can't ignore that there are only so many hours in some many days. My insistence on doing 4x4 does reduce time to do other things. Things they might be more talented and interested in. It just does. I am seriously considering taking a year off of everything except math for 2 of my high schoolers so they have more time to pursue whatever interests they might have. Alas I probably won't because I'm too chicken. :(

 

I wouldn't presume a parent who doesn't push for college readiness is not for education or that they are closing doors necessarily. It may be that their view of education is different. My parents had absolutely nothing to do with my education. Seriously. At one point I had to inform them of where my school was because they didn't know where the bus took me. And they didn't show up fir my high school graduation, which really flustered my future in laws who did show up with my fiance. I used to think it was because they didn't value education. But now I would say it was because they viewed education as what you did, not what you read. It was something you actively physically pursued, not passive acceptance as fact what you were given.

 

But mostly I think having govt and schools regulate home schooling is, at best, the blind leading the blind. It's laughable to think the source of tanking public education is going to miraculously be able help float home schooling.

[Murphy101]

I would argue that he received a "good" enough education if it enabled him to complete his goals and attend Georgetown. Obviously it didn't close doors for him.

 

I do think it's demanding to at least a small degree to whine that it wasn't as easy as he wanted it or that his parents should have done it his way. It always sounds easy when you don't have kids. Maybe they should have ditched their religious beliefs. Maybe they should have uprooted the family to move to a better school district. Maybe they should have hocked the house to pay for private school or tutors. But they didn't and whether it was in spite of them or not, he seems to have managed to get enough education to manage fairly well and to pass what he learned to his younger siblings.

[Greta]

I really don't understand all of the accusations that he is whining and complaining. 

 

He wishes to see his siblings get a better education than he did.

He is trying to help them to that end.

He has stated publicly what he believes would improve education among a certain segment of the population. 

 

That's just whining?  When I think of all the silly, senseless, pointless things that I hear people whine about all the time (and I'm guilty of it too), his desire that children who wish it should have access to education is practically heroic by comparison. 

[LucyStoner]

We live in a culture where education and the ability to collect, verify, analyze and distill information is very much a survival skill.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would argue that he received a "good" enough education if it enabled him to complete his goals and attend Georgetown. Obviously it didn't close doors for him.

 

And I would argue he got that from the CC and not from his parents.

 

I do think it's demanding to at least a small degree to whine that it wasn't as easy as he wanted it or that his parents should have done it his way. It always sounds easy when you don't have kids. Maybe they should have ditched their religious beliefs. Maybe they should have uprooted the family to move to a better school district. Maybe they should have hocked the house to pay for private school or tutors. But they didn't and whether it was in spite of them or not, he seems to have managed to get enough education to manage fairly well and to pass what he learned to his younger siblings.

They did not even attempt to meet his needs, and are failing again with some of the younger children. A poor education at a public school is better than nothing, which is what they are now giving the youngest kids.

 

I am also a bit stunned (although I shouldn't be I guess) at how many supposed educators on this site believe it is perfectly fine to give your child the bare minimum to keep them alive and that anything more than that is just bonus.

[AimeeM]

I would argue that he received a "good" enough education if it enabled him to complete his goals and attend Georgetown. Obviously it didn't close doors for him.

I don't understand this. It appears that he ended up at Georgetown IN SPITE OF what his parents did; not because of anything they did to help.

My father turned out very well - in spite of the fact that he was raised in a physically abusive, downright neglectful home. That doesn't translate into that his parents must have done "okay" and given him a "good enough" childhood; he just eventually wised up, made it on his own, and learned a better way of doing things. He was/is a kick a*s father and man... DESPITE his own upbringing.

[Parrothead]

What is missing from this debate is exactly what his parents did or did not do for this young man's education. At this point with the information we have we are all merely speculating based on what the guy said.

 

He said it wasn't adequate.

He said he was refused by the public school

He said (or maybe it was a sibling) the parents only have one old algebra book ( does algebra change that much that an old book would be obsolete? )

He said...

He said...

He said...

 

His mother said nothing and his father said very little or it was reported to look like his father said very little. And I have to wonder about this father business. How many of our significant others really know what we teach our kids day in and day out? I know my dh has a very hands off approach. He couldn't tell a reporter what books we use, the style of school we have or how much time per day we spend on school. I think a great many families operate in the same way.

[Parrothead]

I don't understand this. It appears that he ended up at Georgetown IN SPITE OF what his parents did; not because of anything they did to help.

My father turned out very well - in spite of the fact that he was raised in a physically abusive, downright neglectful home. That doesn't translate into that his parents must have done "okay" and given him a "good enough" childhood; he just eventually wised up, made it on his own, and learned a better way of doing things. He was/is a kick a*s father and man... DESPITE his own upbringing.

See, that is just it. It appears. We don't know the whole story. Because we don't this entire thread is just speculation on both sides. We are arguing with each other without all the facts.

[Murphy101]

We live in a culture where education and the ability to collect, verify, analyze and distill information is very much a survival skill.

 

One wonders how so many survive given that most can't or won't do half of that. :/

 

And I would argue he got that from the CC and not from his parents.

 

They did not even attempt to meet his needs, and are failing again with some of the younger children. A poor education at a public school is better than nothing, which is what they are now giving the youngest kids.

I am also a bit stunned (although I shouldn't be I guess) at how many supposed educators on this site believe it is perfectly fine to give your child the bare minimum to keep them alive and that anything more than that is just bonus.

Obviously they did attempt or at least didnt hold him back too much or there's no way he would have been able to catch up so quickly. If without any attempt a kid can just work extra hard to catch up to Georgetown readiness at the same age as when most kids are spending 13+ dedicated years to achieve it, either the boy is a genius, or (more likely in my opinion) the 12-13 years everyone else is spending doing the daily education grind is not all that hard to figure out in a few years as a late teen. (hmmm. I wonder if his family were advocates for the Raymond Moore method of education? Not that it matters I suppose.)

 

How are they failing the younger kids? They are letting him help with younger siblings, yes?

 

He hasn't proposed anything that would give his younger siblings a better education. If a test or registration could magically educate kids, I think we'd all rush right out and test the daylights out of our kids and b&m schools would be doing a whole lot better than they are. What gives a better education is time and resources. Numerous posters (or one poster numerous times?) who actually live in the area in question have said the schools would not have done better by him if he had been enrolled, so why would anyone presume the same institution would regulate a better outcome for home schoolers? Obviously his ability to analyze and distill info needs work.

 

Now. If this young man had spoken of ways to make quality instruction available for everyone in his community because of how hard it was on him and many other students having to take remedial classes at their own expense as young adults - that I would support and respect and think actually had a chance at being effective.

 

And no, I don't think everything I want my kids to have or even that I think is very important for them to have is a right. I think the term "rights" is used way too often to apply to things we just think are really good. Something being really good, does not make it a right. Access to food is a right. Ground chuck is not a right. Kolb steak is sure not a right. For that matter, if you can't afford any food at all, no one is required to give it to you. They have the right to let you starve. I think nutrition is far more basic than education and at least as big a health issue in our country, yet I don't think parents should have to submit their children for blood tests and food logs to the local health department because a few of them might be starving their child or nutritionally depriving their child in other ways. (a kid can be morbidly obese and very nutrient deprived for example)

 

None of that means *I* am okay with not providing the best education and food a parent can manage to their kid.

 

There is a world of difference between whether something is a right and whether I think how it is done is moral.

[AimeeM]

Yeah I agree.  We know people can make it even with less than ideal backgrounds or even downright awful ones.  That doesn't mean we should ignore these things.  But at the same time I think we do have to be careful not to impose our ideals onto people with no room for individual ideals.  Americans in general are fiercely protective of their individuality are they not?

 

It's just so hard to say what should be a given in terms of one's rights.

I agree with you.

I should clarify, that although I'm arguing against what his parents did, I'm not necessarily FOR *more* in terms of accountability. Even in states with ruthless accountability/homeschool laws, people find ways to skirt it; more government does NOT seem to help. What's more, although I feel very badly for this boy, and I *do* sincerely feel like his parents dropped the ball, I do NOT want to be told what to teach and how. I don't know where I stand in the debate as a whole. *sigh*

[Χά�ων]

I wonder if I homeschool for different reasons than many of you here. I homeschool DS to provide him with a superior education than he would receive at the local public school and near (less than 90 minute drive each way) private schools. I cannot imagine not providing an education that, at minimum, would allow him to not have to take any remedial classes at the community college.  

[Parrothead]

I agree, but I'm inclined to believe him because a lot of kids won't even throw physically and mentally abusive parents under the bus. It's very unusual for a kid to do that. So I'm inclined to think it took him a lot to admit that publicly and ask for help.

 

That doesn't mean that is the case, but I admit to being swayed because of that reasoning.

 

Of course he could just be simply bitter that his parents chose his educational path. Who knows, maybe my kids will resent that as well. It has crossed my mind. I did not give them a choice.

Yeah, I don't know. It is a lot different to risk one's parents being thrown in jail for abuse than publicly saying one does not like one's parents' religion, educational style and parenting style.

 

In this thread alone at least 3 people threw their parents under the bus for not knowing how to or not choosing to help their kids through the college prep route.

[Parrothead]

I wonder if I homeschool for different reasons than many of you here. I homeschool DS to provide him with a superior education than he would receive at the local public school and near (less than 90 minute drive each way) private schools. I cannot imagine not providing an education that, at minimum, would allow him to not have to take any remedial classes at the community college.

We are a group of mostly classically educating homeschoolers.

 

We also have a number of unschoolers and religious homeschoolers.

 

A great many of us are homeschooling for academic superior reasons.

 

Just because I educate classically does not mean I would condemn a parent for homeschooling using a different philosophy. Not prepping girls for college isn't my idea of a good education but I'd defend one's right to do so.

 

There has never been the right to a college education for anyone in this world.

[TCB]

I've read quite a bit of this thread but not all so forgive me if I'm saying something that someone else has already stated. I think that what some are objecting to is equating the fact that some homeschooled kids fail to get an adequate education with the need for more regulations. It is definitely true that some parents do not ensure an adequate education for their children who are homeschooled. It is also true that some children in PS do not receive an adequate education. If you are going to hold hs parents to more stringent standards then you should also hold ps parents to the same standards. That would be fair although not sure how it would work.

I think what a lot of us object to is being forced to jump through yet more hoops that do not really have the desired effect of improving children's education.

Now if someone could come up with some effective hoops ( that do ensure a good education), and ps parents are made to jump through them too, then we may get somewhere in improving education in general.

[AimeeM]

Years ago when I was a kid I recall my parents being upset about something regarding parents being required to do XYZ or that there should be some control over parents.  They were all worked up about it.  I can't even recall what it was exactly.  And I remember thinking my parents don't even do the thing they are upset about.  It would never even be a factor in their lives.  But they were upset.  I even said why would they care if it doesn't affect them.  They just didn't like the idea of giving other people more freedom to breathe down their necks if they wanted to.  I didn't understand that then, but I do now.  I do sometimes feel like I'm being scrutinized.  And even though I think I do a pretty good job and I try my best to do what I believe is right for my kids and take care of them, I can't help feeling a little defensive sometimes and wishing people didn't seem to be assuming that I was screwing things up.  So while more oversight would not catch me doing anything I'm not supposed to be doing I still don't welcome it.  Not to mention it just takes one jerk to take their position of power over me and what I do to make my life miserable simply because they don't have the same values that I do.  Or simply because they relish the fact they have that kind of power.  I had a friend who was a DCF worker.  I had to stop being friends with her because her attitude disgusted me.  It was like she took pleasure in finding something wrong with parents.  She never acted that way towards me, but who knows.  The attitude was a turn off.  And I'm not saying her attitude is typical.  I have no idea if it is.

I understand... and, what's more, I agree. While this may disgust me on a personal level, I'm well aware that if *I* want to remain free, I need to also proactively help protect the freedom of others - even if I disagree with them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One wonders how so many survive given that most can't or won't do half of that. :/

 

Obviously they did attempt or at least didnt hold him back too much or there's no way he would have been able to catch up so quickly. If without any attempt a kid can just work extra hard to catch up to Georgetown readiness at the same age as when most kids are spending 13+ dedicated years to achieve it, either the boy is a genius, or (more likely in my opinion) the 12-13 years everyone else is spending doing the daily education grind is not all that hard to figure out in a few years as a late teen. (hmmm. I wonder if his family were advocates for the Raymond Moore method of education? Not that it matters I suppose.)

 

How are they failing the younger kids? They are letting him help with younger siblings, yes?

 

He hasn't proposed anything that would give his younger siblings a better education. If a test or registration could magically educate kids, I think we'd all rush right out and test the daylights out of our kids and b&m schools would be doing a whole lot better than they are. What gives a better education is time and resources. Numerous posters (or one poster numerous times?) who actually live in the area in question have said the schools would not have done better by him if he had been enrolled, so why would anyone presume the same institution would regulate a better outcome for home schoolers? Obviously his ability to analyze and distill info needs work.

 

Now. If this young man had spoken of ways to make quality instruction available for everyone in his community because of how hard it was on him and many other students having to take remedial classes at their own expense as young adults - that I would support and respect and think actually had a chance at being effective.

 

And no, I don't think everything I want my kids to have or even that I think is very important for them to have is a right. I think the term "rights" is used way too often to apply to things we just think are really good. Something being really good, does not make it a right. Access to food is a right. Ground chuck is not a right. Kolb steak is sure not a right. For that matter, if you can't afford any food at all, no one is required to give it to you. They have the right to let you starve. I think nutrition is far more basic than education and at least as big a health issue in our country, yet I don't think parents should have to submit their children for blood tests and food logs to the local health department because a few of them might be starving their child or nutritionally depriving their child in other ways. (a kid can be morbidly obese and very nutrient deprived for example)

 

None of that means *I* am okay with not providing the best education and food a parent can manage to their kid.

 

There is a world of difference between whether something is a right and whether I think how it is done is moral.

The lengths some here go to in an effort to defend crappy parenting and call this kid a whiny/ungrateful is simply mind boggling.

[regentrude]

Just because I educate classically does not mean I would condemn a parent for homeschooling using a different philosophy. Not prepping girls for college isn't my idea of a good education but I'd defend one's right to do so.

 

 

For me, this entire debate raises a deeper philosophical question: to what extent do parents have the right to impose their ideas, views, lifestyle choices, etc on their children and limit their children's development in order to adhere to a specific agenda? Where do parental right  end and children's rights begin?

And I do not believe there is an easy answer.

Parents have the right to raise their kids in their own religion - but is it ethical to withhold education from girls because of their gender? Is it ethical to withhold medical treatment? To enforce a marriage? At what age would a child's wish have to be considered?

It is not even just restricted to religion: to what extent is it ethical that parents use their children as a means to further their own dreams? If the parents' dream is to homestead and the kids are forced to hard labor clearing the ground and working the farm instead of receiving an education, up to what degree is this acceptable? If the parents believe contact with outsiders is detrimental and the kids never get to interact with people outside the family - at what point does the behavior become controlling and psychologically abusive?

 

I think these are extremely difficult questions. None of us wishes our parenting interfered with - but OTOH there are clearly behaviors of parents towards children that are not acceptable. What is acceptable is to a large extent determined by culture. (For example, in other countries any physical violence that is illegal towards adults is illegal towards children as well - hitting one's own children is as much against the law as hitting a stranger's children or an adult. )

 

I see the debate over home education as just one facet in the larger issue.

 

[Χά�ων]

 We are a group of mostly classically educating homeschoolers. A great many of us are homeschooling for academic superior reasons. We also have a number of unschoolers and religious homeschoolers. 

 

 

Unschoooler here! Unschooling is NOT nonschooling or educational neglect. It is a lot of work on the parents part helping the child reach their goals. I didn't stop when DS was advanced in one or two subjects and I didn't give up when I discovered the extent of his dyslexia. I facilitate his education and provide guidance as needed, and yes, I teach him things he does not know. I did not pop him out and expect him to learn everything he needed to know to be a functioning adult without assistance. 

 

DS asked for a formal accelerated history program, DS asked to learn Ancient Greek, DS asked to learn math. The classical model of education fits with his educational goals and that is what we are currently doing. His goals may change when he is 12. If he decides he wants to pursue engineering, I will prepare him for such. It is my job to talk to him, listen to what he wants in life and to find the resources for him and to allow him to pursue his educational goals. As he gets older and more independent I will teach him how to find the information and resources himself and I will share what I find. 

 

He will not has as much a chance to achieve his goals if I give him one old text book and leave him on his own or if I actively throw obstacles in his path such as refusing to allow him to attend the local high school if I was unable/unwilling to provide high school level work. That would be cruel on my part.

 

 

 

 Not prepping girls for college isn't my idea of a good education but I'd defend one's right to do so.

 

Sounds sexist. It is something I would report to social services. At the very least, I would offer the child a safe place to live and help navigating the legal system to free herself from a situation where she would not have a chance to be self sufficient.

 

 

 

 There has never been the right to a college education for anyone in this world.

How about the right to be academically prepared so that a person can choose, of their own free will, to pursue a college education? It does not matter if they attended public, private or homeschool. 3 years of remedial education for an otherwise bright, non learning disabled young adult screams of educational neglect.

 

FWIW I did not attend high school. I never took algebra, science or any language arts classes beyond 8th grade. At 19 I enrolled in the community college and had no problem passing the math and language arts classes. With an 8th grade education. I have severe learning disabilities. I did not go to the library and check out books on higher math. I did not study English composition or language arts, heck, I barely read a book from the age of 13-18! I still passed the entrance exams and did not have to take any remedial courses.

 

ETA: I did have a good elementary education through 4th grade.

[Χά�ων]

Yes exactly.  And I know you said parents should be held accountable for their child's public school education as well, but then parents need to be given that freedom.  They currently aren't in many districts.  Yes, they can complain and advocate for their child and they should, but I have gotten the message more than once that many schools don't welcome the input of parents beyond make sure the kid shows up fed, dressed, and on time.  Do the fund raisers and buy the 10 boxes of ziploc bags we requested on the supply sheet and shut up.

That was the district where I used to live.

[TCB]

And I know you said parents should be held accountable for their child's public school education as well, but then parents need to be given that freedom.  They currently aren't in many districts.  Yes, they can complain and advocate for their child and they should, but I have gotten the message more than once that many schools don't welcome the input of parents beyond make sure the kid shows up fed, dressed, and on time.  Do the fund raisers and buy the 10 boxes of ziploc bags we requested on the supply sheet and shut up.

You are right. Parents do not have the ability to hold the PS accountable; I wish they did! I personally think that holding the school accountable becomes more and more difficult the further the control of the school goes from local control. I don't have the answer, wish I did. But there is no point trying to fix things with actions that don't work - no matter how good your intentions are.

[melmichigan]

Yes exactly.  And I know you said parents should be held accountable for their child's public school education as well, but then parents need to be given that freedom.  They currently aren't in many districts.  Yes, they can complain and advocate for their child and they should, but I have gotten the message more than once that many schools don't welcome the input of parents beyond make sure the kid shows up fed, dressed, and on time.  Do the fund raisers and buy the 10 boxes of ziploc bags we requested on the supply sheet and shut up.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the lawsuit attempting to do just that, hold a school district here in Michigan accountable.  I'm surprised it's made it this far (filed last summer).

[Arcadia]

You are right. Parents do not have the ability to hold the PS accountable; I wish they did! I personally think that holding the school accountable becomes more and more difficult the further the control of the school goes from local control. I don't have the answer, wish I did. But there is no point trying to fix things with actions that don't work - no matter how good your intentions are.

My local school district actually refuse to do PI (performance improvements) transfers until my neighbors have to call the state's department of education to step in.  So unfortunately not all state intervention is unwarranted. It is also why afterschooling is so in vogue in my area.

 

My take from the article was that the boy wanted his siblings and others the right to go to school even if parents refused. Maybe at the age kids go to high school? I guess if he could dual enroll at 15 he could have "save" a few years of school time and some money.

http://www.k12.wa.us/SecondaryEducation/CareerCollegeReadiness/DualCredit/CollegeEnrollment.aspx

[Parrothead]

Unschoooler here! Unschooling is NOT nonschooling or educational neglect. It is a lot of work on the parents part helping the child reach their goals. I didn't stop when DS was advanced in one or two subjects and I didn't give up when I discovered the extent of his dyslexia. I facilitate his education and provide guidance as needed, and yes, I teach him things he does not know. I did not pop him out and expect him to learn everything he needed to know to be a functioning adult without assistance.

 

DS asked for a formal accelerated history program, DS asked to learn Ancient Greek, DS asked to learn math. The classical model of education fits with his educational goals and that is what we are currently doing. His goals may change when he is 12. If he decides he wants to pursue engineering, I will prepare him for such. It is my job to talk to him, listen to what he wants in life and to find the resources for him and to allow him to pursue his educational goals. As he gets older and more independent I will teach him how to find the information and resources himself and I will share what I find.

 

He will not has as much a chance to achieve his goals if I give him one old text book and leave him on his own or if I actively throw obstacles in his path such as refusing to allow him to attend the local high school if I was unable/unwilling to provide high school level work. That would be cruel on my part.

 

 

 

Sounds sexist. It is something I would report to social services. At the very least, I would offer the child a safe place to live and help navigating the legal system to free herself from a situation where she would not have a chance to be self sufficient.

 

 

How about the right to be academically prepared so that a person can choose, of their own free will, to pursue a college education? It does not matter if they attended public, private or homeschool. 3 years of remedial education for an otherwise bright, non learning disabled young adult screams of educational neglect.

 

FWIW I did not attend high school. I never took algebra, science or any language arts classes beyond 8th grade. At 19 I enrolled in the community college and had no problem passing the math and language arts classes. With an 8th grade education. I have severe learning disabilities. I did not go to the library and check out books on higher math. I did not study English composition or language arts, heck, I barely read a book from the age of 13-18! I still passed the entrance exams and did not have to take any remedial courses.

I was not singling out unschoolers in my post. But looking back at it I see where I was not clear. Yes, unschoolers can have academically superior goals for their children.

 

There is nothing CPS would do if a parent does not provide college prep high school for girls. Or boys for that matter. It isn't illegal. College is not a right in this country. I don't think it is a right in any other country. There are homeschoolers on this board that will not prepare their daughters for college.

 

Nor is there a right to be academically prepared for life. 35% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Stats for Detroit alone can be found here: http://cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/basicskillsreport_final.pdf

 

You can google other statistics yourself. Things are backward here. Our children have the right to throw away what education is available to them but they do not have the right to an education. They can take what is offered to them and work on their own to improve themselves. But that is all.

 

Is it right? Is it moral? I don't think so. But that is the way it is.

[PeacefulChaos]

I wonder if I homeschool for different reasons than many of you here. I homeschool DS to provide him with a superior education than he would receive at the local public school and near (less than 90 minute drive each way) private schools. I cannot imagine not providing an education that, at minimum, would allow him to not have to take any remedial classes at the community college.  

 

I homeschool for the same reasons as you.  Differently (classical hs'er here :) ) but for the same reason.  Our local schools are nowhere near up to standard.  If we lived somewhere with good schools, I *might* consider sending them, but at the same time, there are still a lot of educational opportunities that wouldn't be regularly available in most schools.  If by some chance they were, I would consider it further.  (sometimes I wish there were! ;) )

 

For me, this entire debate raises a deeper philosophical question: to what extent do parents have the right to impose their ideas, views, lifestyle choices, etc on their children and limit their children's development in order to adhere to a specific agenda? Where do parental right  end and children's rights begin?

And I do not believe there is an easy answer.

Parents have the right to raise their kids in their own religion - but is it ethical to withhold education from girls because of their gender? Is it ethical to withhold medical treatment? To enforce a marriage? At what age would a child's wish have to be considered?

It is not even just restricted to religion: to what extent is it ethical that parents use their children as a means to further their own dreams? If the parents' dream is to homestead and the kids are forced to hard labor clearing the ground and working the farm instead of receiving an education, up to what degree is this acceptable? If the parents believe contact with outsiders is detrimental and the kids never get to interact with people outside the family - at what point does the behavior become controlling and psychologically abusive?

 

I think these are extremely difficult questions. None of us wishes our parenting interfered with - but OTOH there are clearly behaviors of parents towards children that are not acceptable. What is acceptable is to a large extent determined by culture. (For example, in other countries any physical violence that is illegal towards adults is illegal towards children as well - hitting one's own children is as much against the law as hitting a stranger's children or an adult. )

 

I see the debate over home education as just one facet in the larger issue.

I liked your post so much I had to quote it lol... the bolded, especially, are things that I think about ALL THE TIME.  Ok, slight exaggeration, but I think about them a lot.  I think about them when I had a kid who needed blood transfusions and I can't understand those who wouldn't sign that release form (not to be a trigger, just my experience and my background).  I think about them when I see people talking about raising their daughters to be good homemakers above all else.  uuuuuhhhmmmm....ok?  :(  I don't agree with that.  So those things, especially for a person of faith like myself who comes across questions like that on a regular basis, are things I think about a lot.

 

My local school district actually refuse to do PI (performance improvements) transfers until my neighbors have to call the state's department of education to step in.  So unfortunately not all state intervention is unwarranted. It is also why afterschooling is so in vogue in my area.

 

My take from the article was that the boy wanted his siblings and others the right to go to school even if parents refused. Maybe at the age kids go to high school? I guess if he could dual enroll at 15 he could have "save" a few years of school time and some money.

http://www.k12.wa.us/SecondaryEducation/CareerCollegeReadiness/DualCredit/CollegeEnrollment.aspx

 

Yeah, the article kind of comes across that way.  I'm not sure the actual case, but the fact that the school wouldn't let him attend because his parents weren't ok with it seemed to be a point of contention for him.  Though I will be honest and say I do not think that the school should be able to let a kid go against their parents' wishes.... then again, I don't think parents should withhold education from their children (if that was, in fact, the case).  It's such a conundrum... take away rights from parents or education from the kids?  

[LMA]

I think that there is no difference between this case and the kind where parents say, "Whatever the PS does is fine with me." and they never check up on what their kid is learning or what the schools are teaching. They don't look at the textbooks. They don't care as long as their child "passes." I know plenty of examples where the kids graduated and they flunked out of college or they can't hold a job. No matter what the educational choice, always some kids will fall through the crack. Remember this is just one article about one family. You don't see a lot of articles about groups of homeschoolers who are successful. They are always individual cases. When you ask for more regulation, you give up some freedoms. I personally would rather have more freedoms than rules. With each set of regulations, you are being controlled more and more by the government. Even with rules, plenty of kids will fall through the crack. That's why they are trying Common Core standards, testing, etc.

 

[Χά�ων]

There is nothing CPS would do if a parent does not provide college prep high school for girls. Or boys for that matter. It isn't illegal. College is not a right in this country. I don't think it is a right in any other country. There are homeschoolers on this board that will not prepare their daughters for college.

 

 

I might not have been clear. My expectation of an adequate education prior to reaching the age of majority (varies by state) is that the person is educated enough to be able to pursue further education. It does not have to be college. It could be trade school. Though where I live students taking classes at the vocational center earn college credits for their courses. To be successful in these classes one has to have certain skills such as a grasp of mathematics, and the English language in order to understand and communicate information.

 

I am not sure if this is the case everywhere for vocational training or apprenticeships (depending on the program, can also be equivalent to a college credit) so when I say ready for college, I am applying it in a very broad sense to include vocational training and apprenticeships not just jumping right into a prestigious university.

 

 

My parents have taken in teens who were classified as run-aways who left home to pursue education. In the city where I used to live were shelters for teens to escape homes that were abusive, and yes, I consider not preparing a perfectly abled child for higher education to be abuse. There are legal routes for these teens to go if they want to pursue education. A boy who was a few years older than me in school went that route because he parents would not allow him to get an education. It was not an easy road but, with help, he got away from his parents. I would do the same for any child. I would help them get an education their parents knowingly withheld from them.

[Χά�ων]

  We are taught from the get go that these are trustworthy institutions.  . 

Exactly.

 

Many people have come from 3+ generations of having ingrained into us that the schools and teachers are "experts" and parents do not know anything and should trust the experts and allow them to do their job.

 

Where I used to live there were parents who didn't have a clue. One family really stands out in my memory. The mom was 100% against her son doing anything except following his older sisters into a prestigious 4 year university (trade school was beneath them). When they suddenly had a 16 year old who didn't know what a paragraph was, the parents filed multiple lawsuits against anyone and everyone involved in his education but never spent a cent on a tutor or even, *GASP* attempted to explain to him what a paragraph is. It never even occurred to the two highly educated people that maybe, just maybe, they should have been involved with their children's education from the start.

[Parrothead]

I might not have been clear. My expectation of an adequate education prior to reaching the age of majority (varies by state) is that the person is educated enough to be able to pursue further education. It does not have to be college. It could be trade school. Though where I live students taking classes at the vocational center earn college credits for their courses. To be successful in these classes one has to have certain skills such as a grasp of mathematics, and the English language in order to understand and communicate information.

 

I am not sure if this is the case everywhere for vocational training or apprenticeships (depending on the program, can also be equivalent to a college credit) so when I say ready for college, I am applying it in a very broad sense to include vocational training and apprenticeships not just jumping right into a prestigious university.

 

 

My parents have taken in teens who were classified as run-aways who left home to pursue education. In the city where I used to live were shelters for teens to escape homes that were abusive, and yes, I consider not preparing a perfectly abled child for higher education to be abuse. There are legal routes for these teens to go if they want to pursue education. A boy who was a few years older than me in school went that route because he parents would not allow him to get an education. It was not an easy road but, with help, he got away from his parents. I would do the same for any child. I would help them get an education their parents knowingly withheld from them.

Specifically speaking about girls who are not "fully" educated due to religion, these kids aren't abused. What you(or I) consider abuse is not strictly speaking abuse in a legal sense. The parents religious rights trumps the teens want of a higher education. I don't want to say much more publicly because we do have some people with such religious beliefs on this board.

 

Depending on where one lives interfering with a parents right to raise their children as they see fit (no physical abuse or neglect) can land one either in jail or facing a legal suit.

 

Yes, educational neglect is illegal, but education isn't strictly defined nationwide. Unfortunately we have to work within the laws of the land. Either we have a set of national standards or we have the educational chaos we now have (and always have had). But many people are against national standards for a variety of reasons. So what do we as a nation do?

[Parrothead]

I actually consider that bordering on abuse. Are the parents going to take care of these girls when the man doesn't hold up his end of the deal and the girl can't go out and earn a living?

 

I think a person can follow a more traditional path without being denied an education and options. I was going to have a career! Look at me now. But at least I know I have options and can take care of myself. And I was treated like an individual with my own hopes, dreams, and wishes for my life. That's a totally different thing than having someone else tell me what the rest of my life is going to be like.

I don't know much about the religion(s) that have these beliefs, but I think basically, yes. The idea is that the girls go to their husband's house from their father's. if the marriage doesn't work, the (now) women go back to their father's house. Either that or they become dependent on the state, blah, blah, blah we all know the drill.

 

FTR: My religion doesn't hold women back like some of these I've read about here. I don't condone the practice of not educating girls to their fullest potential. My own dd will get the best education I can give her. But I will stand with legitimate homeschoolers so they have the right to homeschool as they se fit.

 

Say what you want about about the kid and his family in the article, he had enough education to graduate from a prestigious university (if he keeps on track) with his age-mates. I can't say whether that's as because of his parents education style or in spite of it since we do not have the parents' side of the story.

[Χά�ων]

Purposely withholding information (in this case access to education) with the intent of making another person dependent on someone IS abuse.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't know much about the religion(s) that have these beliefs, but I think basically, yes. The idea is that the girls go to their husband's house from their father's. if the marriage doesn't work, the (now) women go back to their father's house. Either that or they become dependent on the state, blah, blah, blah we all know the drill.

 

FTR: My religion doesn't hold women back like some of these I've read about here. I don't condone the practice of not educating girls to their fullest potential. My own dd will get the best education I can give her. But I will stand with legitimate homeschoolers so they have the right to homeschool as they se fit.

 

Say what you want about about the kid and his family in the article, he had enough education to graduate from a prestigious university (if he keeps on track) with his age-mates. I can't say whether that's as because of his parents education style or in spite of it since we do not have the parents' side of the story.

Can we stop with the "we don't know the other side" nonsense? His parents had the opportunity to tell their side and chose not to do so. There is no reason to believe what this young man is saying is untrue, and his parents could have cleared up any misconceptions.

[Parrothead]

Can we stop with the "we don't know the other side" nonsense? His parents had the opportunity to tell their side and chose not to do so. There is no reason to believe what this young man is saying is untrue, and his parents could have cleared up any misconceptions.

You have a lot of faith in the media.

 

Truth of the matter is we do not know. The parents decided not to talk. Not everyone wants to talk to the press about what goes on in their lives.