Coalition for Responsible Home Education

[boscopup]

Wow.  I had no idea some states regulated homeschooling in this manner.  Do you have to pay fees to belong to the cover school?  Are you required to attend the weekly meetings?  Has there been any discussion in the secular homeschooling community in your state to try to change these laws?

 

 

You do have to pay fees. They usually range from about $65-$150+ per year. I've seen one that was free or maybe $25, and it was clearly pagan. The cover schools are simply a legal covering. You don't have to do anything WITH the school. They simply report your days absent to the state. :tongue_smilie: Cover schools have different requirements, but most do not have any meeting requirements. I never meet with anyone in my cover school. I simply pay the fee in July and I go on my merry way. It's really pretty easy. No testing required, no subjects required, no nothing. My cover school used to require a twice-a-year report of what we've done (that I'm 99.9% sure they didn't really read), but now they say we should keep those records ourselves. I doubt most members do them anymore. :lol:

 

Can a family establish their own church school.  In Ohio I could form an "08" school based on my religious beliefs. 

 

 

In Alabama, a family could not legally start a church school. However, a group of families that gets together on a regular basis could call themselves a "church" and start a church cover school. I also know of one family who has started a cover school and said that the "church" is a universal body of Christians, not affiliated with a local congregation of Christians. I'm not sure if the state will get onto them if they ever realize what they're doing, but they have done this for a while.

 

Again, I'm annoyed that the cover school has to be affiliated with a "church", because as a Christian of a certain type, I don't believe that's the work of the church, so I'm having to go against my conscience more than a secular homeschooler would have to (signing up for a cover school loosely affiliated with a church that doesn't require a statement of faith). There are plenty of secular homeschoolers in the state using "church cover schools" as their method of homeschooling, and there are non-Christian cover schools. It really isn't the big deal that Rainefox seems to think it is (in Alabama - I don't know about other states with church cover school laws).

[boscopup]

What the flip.  That would really make me mad!

 

:lol: It's so much easier than New York! I'd be annoyed to follow NY regs that you have described. :D

[Berta]

Wow.  I had no idea some states regulated homeschooling in this manner.  Do you have to pay fees to belong to the cover school?  Are you required to attend the weekly meetings?  Has there been any discussion in the secular homeschooling community in your state to try to change these laws?

 

 

In SC you have to be a member of an Accountability Association. They run from non-intrusive by just paying $25 a yr and filing a form saying you are teaching equal to what the public schools teach to full service including transcripts, class ranks, curriculum counseling etc. The state also requires at least a high school diploma or equivalent.

[boscopup]

  Has there been any discussion in the secular homeschooling community in your state to try to change these laws?

 

 

I didn't comment on this point earlier, but I think because homeschooling falls under religious laws, it's more protected than it would be otherwise, so secular people haven't challenged it. Basically, they're being protected too, since the cover schools are free to have their own requirements (and again, secular people can create their own "church" and thus their own "church cover school").

 

[LMV]

The director of our foster care program emailed us the link to the HA site last week.  DH spent quite a bit of time looking through it and I've looked at some of it.  We took an educational neglect/emotional abuse emergency placement last month for a child that was homeschooled.  Our CP/FS was actually hoping to place the child in a longer term placement where they could continue with home education.  I think the caseworker was hoping we would figure out how to make it work to take this child long term but we just aren't in that position so they found a long term placement but home schooling will not be option in that placement.  Just from working with this child the week plus they were with us I'm afraid the transition to public school will be difficult.   Like many in this thread, I do think that the experiences and issues being raised by this group should not be ignored.  I'm just a bit wary that their proposed regulations and legislation will actually accomplish their inherent goals.

 

[BlsdMama]

Some people abuse their children through educational neglect. That's a fact. Some people buy drugs. The fact that buying drugs is illegal does not stop them from doing so. However, I would not advocate drug checks for all of us in order to catch the few. It would also likely be ineffective. This is what we're discussing....

 

Moreover, these kids are angry at their childhood and they should be. But we also ought to be aware that homeschooling for religious reasons does not a nut make you. :) Nor a cult either, frankly. That's a bit like saying because I fit the stereotype, I must not be schooling our daughters either.

 

This is, imo, an anti home-schooling movement. I don't believe it's intentional, but often innocent victims make awesome firewood.

[boscopup]

While you mention it, wouldn't it be great if there were more secular cover schools?

 

There are some, and it doesn't matter where they are. Anyone in the state can use any cover school. So I don't think there being more would mean much. Really, homeschooling in AL is a piece of cake, whether you're religious or not.

 

And these are not schools that give you curriculum or really *do* anything, so they're not like American School or CLE Homeschool program or other "umbrella schools" like that. These are completely different. They simply provide a legal route to homeschooling in this state. I could see secular homeschoolers wanting that type of "umbrella school", where curriculum/grading/etc. are provided.

 

[boscopup]

Some people abuse their children through educational neglect. That's a fact. Some people buy drugs. The fact that buying drugs is illegal does not stop them from doing so. However, I would not advocate drug checks for all of us in order to catch the few. It would also likely be ineffective. This is what we're discussing....

 

That's a good point. Should all parents be drug tested? There are a large number of children with drug-user parents who receive zero education at home (ie, no reading aloud, no talking about colors and counting and other basic preschool things), and those kids go to school not knowing that they're wearing a yellow shirt. They don't have books at home. These children are severely disadvantaged long term because of their parents' lack of interest in being parents. Does that mean that every single parent in the country should be drug tested?

 

[boscopup]

Really? Are there any that are not Clonlara (too expensive compared to church-related options) or aimed at unschoolers? We (European) are with HLA, and they are both cheap and inclusive, meaning they don't require a statement of faith and don't mind secular people enrolling. Despite that, I would be open to the idea of switching to a good secular umbrella that offers a similar service for a similar amount of money. 

 

I don't think AL cover schools would be useful to anyone outside the state? They're not accredited, and again, they don't really "do" anything. Their sole purpose is to provide a method to legally homeschool in AL. Again, they are completely different from the type of "umbrella school" you would be interested in.

 

The nice thing about church cover schools is that they're exempt from a lot of things private schools have to do, and again, it doesn't matter if the person enrolled in the cover school is religious or secular. So yes, even secular homeschoolers have less requirements than private schools here (religious or otherwise).

 

[boscopup]

I wasn't talking specifically about AL, though it's obvious that umbrella schools would pop up only in states in which being enrolled in one confers some type of benefit. We're enrolled in a US umbrella for specific legal reasons. Our laws state that homeschooled children's progress "must be recorded by a school". Since this academic year is the first one in which homeschooling is legal in this country, local schools are not sure how to handle the paperwork yet, and a US umbrella is the only practical option available.

 

I doubt AL cover schools would take enrollments outside of AL, but yes, I understand your predicament. I don't know what exists for that situation.

[Crimson Wife]

Back to the original topic, one thing that could be done easily without changing HSing regulations is to require CPS to keep statistics on the type of schooling that abused and/or neglected kids of compulsory school age are getting. There is this fear that HSers are at greater risk, but the truth is we have no solid data. If 5% of children are HS, is the percentage of abused/neglected kids who are HS greater than, equal to, or less than 5%? Unless CPS starts keeping track, it's anybody's guess.

[La Condessa]

This thread has been fascinating, as it has echoed the same questions that I have been struggling with myself lately. Through his work my husband has recently come into contact with a number of near-adults who are "homeschooled" (so called), and functionally illiterate. He has also in the past dealt with abused children whose parents used homeschooling as a guise to help hide their abuse. He strongly feels that more stringent regulations and requirements on homeschooling, while a great annoyance for real homeschoolers, would be worth it if they helped enable even some of these cases of actual abuse and educational neglect to be discovered and intervened in.

 

I have been pulled between two ideas that would seem to suggest conflicting paths. On one hand, the conviction that if there is anything we can do to help even one of those poor children who are being abused, we ought to be willing to do it, no matter how frustrating and inconvenient--and on the other hand, the basic philosophy that any system which assumes guilt until innocence has been proven is faulty, that the majority of humankind is good and desires to do right by their children, and that the best results in any endeavor can be achieved by allowing good people to act according to their own conscience unfettered. There is something very deep in my makeup that balks at the thought of being subjected to regulations based on an assumption that I could be a potential child abuser, and the same must apply to anyone else who has no past indication of wrongdoing.

 

Thus far, the only conclusion I have reached is that any regulations placed for the purpose of detecting abuse and/or educational neglect must be universal--if your purpose in wanting the regulation is because you are concerned that some homeschoolers are abusing their children, then whatever measure is used to check up on those children would have to be something that would be deemed reasonable for all parents to have required of them, even including those with infants. After all, if these abusive parents are willing to keep their kids home to hide their abuse and calling it homeschooling, they are probably not waiting until the age of five to begin, and abused kids under the age of five are just as worthy of protection.

 

If it is educational neglect you are concerned about, then whatever you require of homeschooling parents, whether it be testing, etc., ought to be required of all students, with the same interventions in place if requirements are not met-- meaning that the answer can not simply be, if they fail the test, they have to go to public school, because as many have pointed out, many students in public schools are mistreated and get awful educations, too. So all students who do not meet the requirements, whatever they may be, must be offered the same recourse, whether that include individual tutoring services, IEPs, I don't know.

 

But it seems to me that to say that because some awful parents claim to be homeschoolers, all homeschoolers (and only homeschoolers) should have to meet some requirements to prove they aren't awful parents (=all homeschoolers are potential abusers and suspect) is unjust and unreasonable. If you wanted to implement some specific requirement to check up on kids, and it was convenient for that to occur at the school for those kids attending public school, I would not have a problem with that while homeschool families fulfilled the same requirement at another place/time, so long as it is the same "check"--not a clear requirement for homeschoolers, with only a vague "well, they're around teachers and folks, so someone would probably notice something" for public schooled kids.

 

 

ETA: sorry this is so wordy, I guess I'm rambling and need to go to bed.

[kiana]

I have been pulled between two ideas that would seem to suggest conflicting paths. On one hand, the conviction that if there is anything we can do to help even one of those poor children who are being abused, we ought to be willing to do it, no matter how frustrating and inconvenient--and on the other hand, the basic philosophy that any system which assumes guilt until innocence has been proven is faulty, that the majority of humankind is good and desires to do right by their children, and that the best results in any endeavor can be achieved by allowing good people to act according to their own conscience unfettered. There is something very deep in my makeup that balks at the thought of being subjected to regulations based on an assumption that I could be a potential child abuser, and the same must apply to anyone else who has no past indication of wrongdoing.

 

While I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, I'm bolding this comment because I've seen it before.

 

There are a lot of places where we could pass a frustrating and inconvenient law that would indeed help children who are being abused or killed. For a specific example, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14. If we banned private use of motor vehicles, or instituted a nationwide speed limit of 10mph, we could save so many lives!

 

Obviously this is a ridiculous example and I don't think we should do this. But saying "No matter how frustrating and inconvenient, if it saves one, we should be willing to do it" is a rather excessive statement.

[La Condessa]

While I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, I'm bolding this comment because I've seen it before.

 

There are a lot of places where we could pass a frustrating and inconvenient law that would indeed help children who are being abused or killed. For a specific example, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14. If we banned private use of motor vehicles, or instituted a nationwide speed limit of 10mph, we could save so many lives!

 

Obviously this is a ridiculous example and I don't think we should do this. But saying "No matter how frustrating and inconvenient, if it saves one, we should be willing to do it" is a rather excessive statement.

I suppose I can agree with you that my statement needs a qualifier; anything within reason. Of course, that still leaves one to decide what precautions are reasonable.

 

While I do take the point of your example, I also feel that cases where children are subject to the same risks as others, such as your situation of children who die in car crashes, should not be lumped in the same category, and therefore held to the same standard of what precautions are reasonable, as cases where those who are responsible for the well being of children specifically set out to cause them harm. While child injuries and deaths from other causes are tragic, I do not feel that society as a whole has a general responsibility to protect its members from risk and harm. I do feel that societies have a moral obligation to intervene when those who do have the responsibility to protect from harm and risk those unable to act on their own behalf, choose instead to cause harm to those whom they ought to protect.

[WishboneDawn]

Back to the original topic, one thing that could be done easily without changing HSing regulations is to require CPS to keep statistics on the type of schooling that abused and/or neglected kids of compulsory school age are getting. There is this fear that HSers are at greater risk, but the truth is we have no solid data. If 5% of children are HS, is the percentage of abused/neglected kids who are HS greater than, equal to, or less than 5%? Unless CPS starts keeping track, it's anybody's guess.

That's an excellent idea.

 

It's also one I can see a group like the HSLDA opposing but I don't give a flip. Without data so much of this is just anecdote and we're left with just conjecture.

[stripe]

We actually have compulsory medical checks in our country. They are problematic, because they are organized through the school and parents are not present and can't choose the doctor. I don't want my kids' teeth drilled by a sub-standard state dentist and prefer to go private, yet that's exactly what would be happening if my kids were in public school — no right to say no, because they do it without notice and your kid just comes home with a bad filling. Same with certain booster vaccines. If medical exams are compulsory, I want the right to choose the provider at the very least.  

I see your point, but on the other hand, I guess the idea is that if your kids' teeth were being maintained at the dentist of your choice, or if they were up to date on their boosters, there would be less chance of this, whereas kids with no access to dental care would at least not be neglected. (I have kind of a personal sense of distress at the sight of neglected teeth, especially in kids.)

[laundrycrisis]

I agree, and I also think we need to ask another question. For every individual that would be helped but such legislation, how many would be harmed? This is probably an unpopular and "mean" thing to ask, but it's not irrelevant, 

 

In this case, very invasive homeschooling regulations might well mean some families are denied the right to homeschool. Let's say a child has extensive special needs and authorities believe parents cannot handle them at home. ("Nobody who isn't a professional can stay sane in these circumstances.") Yet, a public school might not be equipped to meet the needs of such kids at all, and they might well be much better off at home — for academic and social reasons.

 

We should acknowledge that abuse can and does happen in public schools, and that peer-to-peer bullying is definitely abuse, even if the perpetrators might not be legally accountable. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that fair and effective child-protection legislation should be universal and not apply only to kids in certain educational settings. Universal does mean more invasive for everyone. Would every public school parent be happy to subject their kids to annual medical examinations (as this group proposes), for instance? I would think not. 

 

We actually have compulsory medical checks in our country. They are problematic, because they are organized through the school and parents are not present and can't choose the doctor. I don't want my kids' teeth drilled by a sub-standard state dentist and prefer to go private, yet that's exactly what would be happening if my kids were in public school — no right to say no, because they do it without notice and your kid just comes home with a bad filling. Same with certain booster vaccines. If medical exams are compulsory, I want the right to choose the provider at the very least.  

 

These are exactly my concerns with any and all legislation that is written to apply specifically to homeschools. 

 

Abuse, neglect, manipulation and really bad education can happen anywhere, regardless of where and how a child's education is being handled. 

 

Any homeschooled child with LD issues may be "behind" for very good reasons, with a parent who is bending over backward and leaving no stone unturned to teach and help the kid - but a state evaluator could wrongly decide that it's the homeschooling causing the slow progress, and force the child into public school, where nobody will put that much effort into helping the child. 

 

I have sympathy for these people and what they are trying to help fix.  But I see a lot of unfairness in some of their suggestions.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

I completely understand the motivations of adults who have been homeschooled so terribly and who have been abused to want the state to intervene, but how's the state doing when it comes to its own students in the worst family and academic situations? How many billions in resources have been extended to the state to make sure every ps student that they see on a daily basis, 36 weeks a year, in the US is getting a solid education in a safe environment?  If they can't solve it with all that, then, practically, how can they solve it in any of the ways proposed?

 

Does anyone else think that it's really bizarre to support the idea that the state, with significant numbers of ps students who are being disastrously "educated" by the state sprinkled throughout the US,  (think inner cities in Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and such) has some sort of credibility when it comes to stopping someone from educating children badly?  What consequences have there been for pses with long, well known records of failing children in schools and significant records of violence on campus?  Have those teachers and administrations been canned and the kids sent someone with a good solid record? 
 

[PachiSusan]

I completely understand the motivations of adults who have been homeschooled so terribly and who have been abused to want the state to intervene, but how's the state doing when it comes to its own students in the worst family and academic situations? How many billions in resources have been extended to the state to make sure every ps student that they see on a daily basis, 36 weeks a year, in the US is getting a solid education in a safe environment?  If they can't solve it with all that, then, practically, how can they solve it in any of the ways proposed?

 

Does anyone else think that it's really bizarre to support the idea that the state, with significant numbers of ps students who are being disastrously "educated" by the state sprinkled throughout the US,  (think inner cities in Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and such) has some sort of credibility when it comes to stopping someone from educating children badly?  What consequences have there been for pses with long, well known records of failing children in schools and significant records of violence on campus?  Have those teachers and administrations been canned and the kids sent someone with a good solid record? 

 

 

 

Word.  :thumbup1:

[ColleenInWis]

New pages at the CRHE site, I think?  These pages give specific examples of ways parents have withheld documentation from their offspring.  

 

http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/abuse-and-neglect/transcripts-and-diplomas/

 

http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/abuse-and-neglect/identification-documents/

 

Regarding the policy recommendations:  From http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/policy-recommendations/  "These policy recommendations are preliminary. Over the coming months and years, we hope to conduct research to determine what forms of oversight are effective without being overly burdensome and to update these recommendations accordingly. If you want to give feedback on these recommendations, please contact us."

 

 

[ColleenInWis]

Why were laws like these defeated?  (I'm assuming the links will work...  If not, the source is here:  http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/abuse-and-neglect/homeschooling-abuse-concealing-abuse/)

 

The homeschooling lobby has opposed targeted attempts to protect abused or neglected homeschooled children, arguing that these efforts amount to profiling. In 1990, Florida’s homeschooling lobby defeated a bill that would have required new homeschooling parents’ names to be checked against a child abuse registry. In early 2013 a Pennsylvania bill that would have flagged for additional monitoring children who were pulled from school to homeschool after a substantiated abuse or neglect claim was opposed by a national homeschooling lobby. Indeed, that same national homeschooling lobby has regularly opposed any form of background check for homeschooling parents. While profiling all homeschoolers as abusers must be avoided, there should be targeted provisions in place to combat homeschooling’s unique ability to conceal and intensify abuse and neglect. We believe that requiring background checks, preventing convicted child abusers or sex offenders from homeschooling, flagging for additional monitoring at-risk children who are withdrawn from school to be homeschooled, and ensuring that homeschooled children have at least annual contact with a mandatory reporter is not a great deal to ask.

[MysteryJen]

Why were laws like these defeated?  (I'm assuming the links will work...  If not, the source is here:  http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/abuse-and-neglect/homeschooling-abuse-concealing-abuse/)

 

The homeschooling lobby has opposed targeted attempts to protect abused or neglected homeschooled children, arguing that these efforts amount to profiling. In 1990, Florida’s homeschooling lobby defeated a bill that would have required new homeschooling parents’ names to be checked against a child abuse registry. In early 2013 a Pennsylvania bill that would have flagged for additional monitoring children who were pulled from school to homeschool after a substantiated abuse or neglect claim was opposed by a national homeschooling lobby. Indeed, that same national homeschooling lobby has regularly opposed any form of background check for homeschooling parents. While profiling all homeschoolers as abusers must be avoided, there should be targeted provisions in place to combat homeschooling’s unique ability to conceal and intensify abuse and neglect. We believe that requiring background checks, preventing convicted child abusers or sex offenders from homeschooling, flagging for additional monitoring at-risk children who are withdrawn from school to be homeschooled, and ensuring that homeschooled children have at least annual contact with a mandatory reporter is not a great deal to ask.

I would assume because those bills did in fact target homeschoolers unfairly. Abuse and neglect claims happen in many divorce and custody battles.  Why should I have a background check to homeschool my children when my neighbor who enrolls in an online charter would not be subject to one?

 

These sorts of laws presume guilt and abuse by homeschooling parents. 

[snowbeltmom]

While profiling all homeschoolers as abusers must be avoided, there should be targeted provisions in place to combat homeschooling’s unique ability to conceal and intensify abuse and neglect. We believe that requiring background checks, preventing convicted child abusers or sex offenders from homeschooling, flagging for additional monitoring at-risk children who are withdrawn from school to be homeschooled, and ensuring that homeschooled children have at least annual contact with a mandatory reporter is not a great deal to ask.

 

Isn't requiring background checks a form of profiling all homeschoolers?  Isn't requiring an annual meeting with a mandatory reporter profiling homeschoolers? 

 

I have a major issue with both of these proposals.  There are many in the general population that believe homeschooling should be illegal because it is not in the child's best interest.  What would happen if the mandatory reporter had that opinion? 

 

[ColleenInWis]

I would assume because those bills did in fact target homeschoolers unfairly. Abuse and neglect claims happen in many divorce and custody battles.  Why should I have a background check to homeschool my children when my neighbor who enrolls in an online charter would not be subject to one?

 

These sorts of laws presume guilt and abuse by homeschooling parents. 

 

Any adult who volunteers to work with children has to undergo a background check.  That's not presuming guilt--it's screening people to weed out those who have tendencies to abuse.  

[snowbeltmom]

Any adult who volunteers to work with children has to undergo a background check.  That's not presuming guilt--it's screening people to weed out those who have tendencies to abuse.  

 

Are you suggesting that the child's parents should be subjected to the same screening as a volunteer who works with kids? 

[ColleenInWis]

I'm not suggesting anything.  The coalition is suggesting it.  I'm suggesting that homeschool parents think about the problems, discuss possible solutions, and encourage one another to be responsible, to live up to the great reputation we want home education to have.  I'm suggesting we analyze proposed legislation ourselves, rather than relying on HSLDA to tell us what to support or not support.      

 

 

[Harriet Vane]

Any adult who volunteers to work with children has to undergo a background check.  That's not presuming guilt--it's screening people to weed out those who have tendencies to abuse.  

 

Imposing this requirement on parents without justification is definitely presuming guilt. It's totally different to screen strangers who will be working with other people's children. I fully support background checks for childcare workers, but am adamantly opposed to placing this requirement on parents in general. I would be even more vehemently opposed to placing this requirement only on one subset of parents.

[Irishmommy]

I haven't read this whole thread, but how do they propose paying for all these services? We can't even get the Government funded, much less education. I feel for them, but I just don't think their on the right track. If you take all the freedom away from parents to school their children, then it becomes public school at home.

[Irishmommy]

Why would the parents need to have a background check, it isn't like arrests, warrants or convictions is some big secret. Don't convicted sex offenders have to register where they live?

[Irishmommy]

And it isn't like convicted felons can't have children...I just don't get it.

[Saddlemomma]

Any adult who volunteers to work with children has to undergo a background check.  That's not presuming guilt--it's screening people to weed out those who have tendencies to abuse.  

 

But I'm not a volunteer; I'm the parent. If we're to have a coalition such as this, why not just have one to determine whether or not couples can have kids in the first place? After all, the kids are still home after school and PS kids go home after school. If a parent is going to abuse their kid, they are going to do it whether they HS or PS.

[snowbeltmom]

I haven't read this whole thread, but how do they propose paying for all these services? We can't even get the Government funded, much less education. I feel for them, but I just don't think their on the right track. If you take all the freedom away from parents to school their children, then it becomes public school at home.

 

I don't know about this group in particular, but other groups that would like to pass laws requiring parents to have background checks and interviews with government "experts" in order to homeschool believe the costs for these services should be paid for by the homeschooling family.

 

[Haiku]

I'm suggesting we analyze proposed legislation ourselves, rather than relying on HSLDA to tell us what to support or not support.      

 

I have never in my life worried about what HSLDA has to say, much less relied on them, because I think they are a vile organization. I read the proposed laws in my state and consider whether they violate our constitutional rights, single out homeschooling families based on emotion rather than evidence, originate from a bias against homeschooling, or fail to achieve their specified aim. If I feel any of these are true, I oppose the legislation. I have no duty to be a positive face for homeschooling by giving up my rights or allowing people to place undue restrictions or regulations on my legal right to homeschool.

[snowbeltmom]

I have never in my life worried about what HSLDA has to say, much less relied on them, because I think they are a vile organization. I read the proposed laws in my state and consider whether they violate our constitutional rights, single out homeschooling families based on emotion rather than evidence, originate from a bias against homeschooling, or fail to achieve their specified aim. If I feel any of these are true, I oppose the legislation. I have no duty to be a positive face for homeschooling by giving up my rights or allowing people to place undue restrictions or regulations on my legal right to homeschool.

 

This exactly! 

[claluck]

While asking for screening of homeschool parents seems like an innocent and easy thing I see tons of problems with that.  Example.  I have a friend who was married to a "Sex offender"  A man who at 19 slept with his 16 year old girlfriend was charged by the parents and now 15 years later is still labeled as a sex offender for a stupid mistake he made as a teenager.  It is very frustrating for them.  There are always exceptions.  People will always be mislabeled one way or the other.  While we all tend to have that creepy ick feeling at the word sex offender I have learned that there are so many "real" definitions to that word.  Just as there are so many to "homeschool."  

 

I generally hate how the label of homeschool has a negative connotation so often and fight for my image.  Unfortunately I am fighting against examples I see around me of poor homeschooling (At least in my opinion).  I was directly involved in a report that led to children being removed from a homeschool home.  While the parents didn't use homeschool to cover their indiscretions I believe homeschool contributed to them being able to do it because the children were not being seen by the outside world.  (It was an incredibly sad situation and the kids are back with their parents who are now divorced over the whole thing).  I also know a family who lives nearby whose children are in public school and are being neglected but not to a point that public school can do anything about it.  So how the heck would having kids in public school help them.  I (regularly feed at least one of the kids).  I went to public school and suffered years of abuse at home.   As a community (ie neighborhoods) we should be looking out for kids whether they are homeschooled or public schooled.

 

I also pulled my oldest from public school after he endured years of bullying.  He was suffering emotional and sometimes physical abuse at the hands of other kids, but to some that is still a better option than homeschooling!?!

 

The problem they are trying address is abuse and it is real.  While homeschooling was used to increase in that level of abuse I still disagree that regulating homeschool will somehow solve this.  I do not believe that is the answer.  These kids suffered real and true injustice but it should not be used to imply that all homeschooling parents are suspects of such treatment of their children.  As a basis we enjoy as citizens the right to be held innocent until proven guilty.  

 

I think the best suggestion I have see that does not impeded on rights is to offer adult education and help in overcoming the hurdles the parents of these children have created.  Perhaps private organizations could fund help for these individuals.  I know there are some private organizations out there for helping women run from abusive husbands and adult children to run from certain societies.  

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/when-precision-is-a-red-pen/

I think that's an excellent post. I also think her point about NHERI research is bang on. It's not data, it's manufactured pseudo-data meant to bolster HSLDA lobby efforts.

[ColleenInWis]

I always struggle with what to say when a friend posts something on Facebook that highlights the "data" that supposedly proves that a homeschool education is better than a public school education.  Here's one article that sums up the problems with the research nicely:  Homeschooling Academic Superiority Exaggerated Over the Last Decade.

 

ETA:  corrected my misspelling in the link title.  

[SarahW]

I'm back here after a hiatus, and have been reading through this thread with mixed feelings.

 

ftr, I have a "dog" in this fight. I've mentioned my personal experience with being homeschooled here before, I don't think it's necessary to go through it again here.

 

Honestly, yes, the legal aspect of regulating homeschooling is problematic. I think some regulation is important. There needs to be a clear delineation between actual homeschooling by dedicated parents and simple truancy because parents are too lazy to get their kids on the bus, for example. (Yes, I know a homeschool dad who is a truancy court judge, and no, he does not let the "oh, we homeschool" explanation fly without question).

 

The laws they are asking for make more sense if you read the stories of what some of them went through. Whether or not minors have legal access to their own personal records (birth certificate/SS#) is not something conscientious parents think about. But I can see how it is an honest issue for some.

 

What they want, though, can only really be achieved by a change in the homeschooling culture. One of the stories talks about how a lady in her homeschooling group passed out Pearl's books to all the mom's like they were textbooks. To a brand-new homeschooler this sort of toxic mix can be deadly. If we see that sort of thing happening we should have the courage to speak out against it - "Even though the  Pearl's homeschool, that doesn't mean everyone should do what they do. Parents should decide how to raise their own kids. Please stop."

 

But really, the culture at the top needs to change. Drastically.

1) I would like to see a homeschool magazine publish an issue without ONCE mentioning "public school" in a derogatory fashion (TOS, I'm looking at you). Homeschool parents should not be so afraid of public schools that they do not send their kids there even after they have lost the ability to homeschool them.

2) HSLDA needs to include articles in their magazine that define what child abuse is, and include verbal and emotional abuse.

3) HSLDA needs to AT LEAST ONCE prosecute a PARENT on behalf of a homeschooled child who has been abused. And then write about it in their magazine to tell parents what is right and what is wrong.

4) Homeschooling "spokespeople" need to stop parroting the line that homeschooling is ALWAYS better than public school (Kevin Swanson, I'm looking at you). I was homeschooled, my peers in public school learned more about physics, chemistry, and anatomy than I did. I guarantee it, because I never once studied those subjects.

5) Homeschooling conferences need to stop having speakers who have nothing to say about schooling. So the Duggars homeschool their kids. So frkkin' what? Unless they are going to only talk about how they noticed how different curriculums worked with different kids THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.

 

In other words, the "people at the top" need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and solve this problem by what they do or say. But what is the likelihood of that happening? Since H.A. has already been described by many of those leaders as godless rebels, I think about none. So I'm not surprised that they have immediately moved to the legal route.

 

I'm not sure what the future holds for homeschooling. ATM I'm liking the flexibility of being in a very low-regulation state. But when I look at a good part of the larger homeschooling world I feel scared. I know that road, and it's a path towards destruction.

 

[Haiku]

But really, the culture at the top needs to change. Drastically.

 

I agree with the things that you listed, but I think part of the problem is defining those entities as "the top." There is no top in homeschooling. No one owns or defines homeschooling for the homeschool community. Individual homeschoolers own and define their own homeschooling. The entities that you described as "the top" would be defined by me as "the conservative fringe." They may yell the loudest, but they don't actually represent any sort of monolithic view on homeschooling.

[Crimson Wife]

HSLDA needs to AT LEAST ONCE prosecute a PARENT on behalf of a homeschooled child who has been abused.

That is the job of a District Attorney or other prosecutor. I don't belong to HSLDA, but if I did, I wouldn't want my dues money going towards something that should be the responsibility of the county justice system.

[ColleenInWis]

What they want, though, can only really be achieved by a change in the homeschooling culture...

 

But really, the culture at the top needs to change. Drastically... 

 

In other words, the "people at the top" need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and solve this problem by what they do or say...

 

Sarah, thanks for this.  I've been wanting to add a post, "what I've concluded from this thread," but I think your post sums up my conclusions.  The number 1 priority is:  The homeschool culture needs to change.  And really, it is a subculture within homeschool--mainly conservative christians who follow the magazines, conventions, books, radio programs, HSLDA mindset, etc.  So much unhealthy stuff is implied and encouraged within that culture and rarely questioned at all.  

 

 

 

[ColleenInWis]

That is the job of a District Attorney or other prosecutor. I don't belong to HSLDA, but if I did, I wouldn't want my dues money going towards something that should be the responsibility of the county justice system.

 

Right, but they need to support the prosecution of an abusive homeschool parent, rather than pretending that abuse never happens in homeschool families. 

 

ETA:  removed hyperbolical phrase that was probably a bit strong and added this link to HSLDA article "Spurious Abuse Claim Refuted."  Are all abuse claims against homeschool families "spurious," according to HSLDA?

[ErinE]

Sarah, thanks for this.  I've been wanting to add a post, "what I've concluded from this thread," but I think your post sums up my conclusions.  The number 1 priority is:  The homeschool culture needs to change.  And really, it is a subculture within homeschool--mainly conservative christians who follow the magazines, conventions, books, radio programs, HSLDA mindset, etc.  So much unhealthy stuff is implied and encouraged within that culture and rarely questioned at all.  

 

There is no universal homeschool culture.

There are conservative Christians in public school.

There are felons who are parents.

 

The proposals you're advocating should apply to all parents or no parents. I highly doubt requiring all parents undergo background checks passes constitutional muster. I highly doubt requiring all parents to keep schooling records passes a reality check.

 

I am a parent who schools her children at home. I have been a parent who sends her children to the PS system. My parenting style and concerns haven't changed just because my children's education changed location. Negligent parents will be negligent whether the child is at home or at school. 

[Crimson Wife]

Sarah, thanks for this.  I've been wanting to add a post, "what I've concluded from this thread," but I think your post sums up my conclusions.  The number 1 priority is:  The homeschool culture needs to change.  And really, it is a subculture within homeschool--mainly conservative christians who follow the magazines, conventions, books, radio programs, HSLDA mindset, etc.  So much unhealthy stuff is implied and encouraged within that culture and rarely questioned at all.

Change this to "the abusive subculture within Christianity- whose followers may or may not homeschool -needs to change" and I agree. It isn't about homeschooling per se. I don't see these HS critics at CHRE or Homeschoolers Anonymous complaining about how their secular hippie "unschooling" parents were negligent and let them spend all day surfing rather than doing college prep work.

[La Texican]

Sarah, thanks for this.  I've been wanting to add a post, "what I've concluded from this thread," but I think your post sums up my conclusions.  The number 1 priority is:  The homeschool culture needs to change.  And really, it is a subculture within homeschool--mainly conservative christians who follow the magazines, conventions, books, radio programs, HSLDA mindset, etc.  So much unhealthy stuff is implied and encouraged within that culture and rarely questioned at all.  

So why target homeschoolers for reform instead of conservative Christian subculture? It's because it's an easier target, right?!

 

I just don't like this line of thinking because I don't want to take responsibility for other people. That's what I'm reading, it may not be what you're saying. The gist of what I'm seeing is that if I want to use my right to homeschool then I should be willing to take some responsibility for the damage some other homeschoolers are doing to their children. But I don't have authority over what other people are doing. The State does have some authority. You're trying to leverage that authority to save these children. Would you support the same legislation for conservative Christians, rather than for homeschoolers? Would you support a law that required every family that belonged to a conservative Christian denomination to submit to the same oversight that you are asking for homeschoolers? It's the same thing. You can't because conservative Christian denominations are more established and you wouldn't have a chance. The State already has laws that define abuse and neglect. I feel like if you think these laws are not strong enough to protect children then you need to lobby to change these laws for all children and not single out homeschoolers. If homeschool children need the right to their paperwork, then so do other conservative Christian children whose parents might withold their ssn & birth certificate unless they comply with the parents wishes. The law should say "all children have a right to access their own files." What about gangster parents, or deadbeat, or ghetto, or worthless parents. You want individual homeschool parents to feel responsibility for other homeschool parents, then it's only fair that you should have to be responsible for all the suffering children equally. It's not that I don't want to take the whole world to raise, it's that I have my own family to raise. I really have no authority over other families choices. That's not a moral belief, it's an observation. I have my own ideas about what's best for kids, but I can not make other people do what I think is right. You're asking for legislation that affects me in the hope that it will make someone else choose to do better. You're asking me to feel responsible for families when I have no authority to make them do better. I'm not against legislation on individual issues as long as they're for all children and not singling out some. I don't see how parents can "keep your ssn & birth certificate". If you're an adult you can go to the office or online and have them mailed to you. This doesn't need legislation. This probably does need a charity organization to help these folks learn the system, get their bearings and get on their feet. I will continue to watch this thread searching for one good reason to come up why we need a new law. I haven't seen one yet. I don't know why you brought up "homeschooling's not always as good as they say.". Do you want to make a law against bragging about homeschool? I wouldn't mind a law against the Pearls book. Actually, I would, that's not the correct proceedure. I would like to see the Pearls charged as accomplices in the deaths they've caused. Back on topic, you can't seriously be complaining that some homeschool writings tout homeschool with scientific sounding jargon that's not based on scientifically sound research. Do you know nothing about writing and publishing? My dad told me when I was young "anybody can write a book about anything and have it published. Just because it's in black and white does not mean it's a fact. Even memoirs are not an act of memory, not an act of history. Memories are fallable, they're not facts.". The thing you're complaining about is not a scientific report in a scientific journal, it is a piece of persuasive writing. They are within what's allowed in persuasive writing. It can even be horrible and not very persuasive. It's allowed. It can use a scientific tone and scientific jargon without being actually scientific, it's allowed in persuasive writing. Emotionally, yeah, I'm like "oh it's wrong that they say that. They're so wrong.". But is that emotion a call to action? Hey, give me something to consider. Link me to someone from this movement who's going for their phd in sociology who knows what data they need and how it could be useful, knows how to use the police and social services to get data on homeschoolers who wouldn't self-select for the study, let me know what they're going to do with the data, then post a link here with their questionair and a summary of what they're doing. I've seen other phd hopefuls post on these boards in a similar manner. If you want to say "we need hard facts data" this would show that you had a use for that data and someone who knew how to interpret it. It's only fair, since you're 1.) saying you "need" data, and 2.) complaining that persuasive writers are not following scientific protocol in their persuasive writing.

[WishboneDawn]

ecoparents will be negligent whether the child is at home or at school. [/size]

 

There is no universal culture but there is a dominant one and despite the fact that those of us on the inside can see the diversity, people on the outside often only see a very specific type of homeschooling culture.

 

Do we do anything to counter that?

[SarahW]

LaTexican,

 

I think I get at what you're saying. I have to run, but let me just answer with this - I think it behooves people to not willingly propagate misinformation. They should not use this misinformation to encourage people to make decisions which are bad for their family.

 

Can we force that to happen? No. But we can make it loudly clear that we do find this behavior unacceptable.

[La Texican]

I don't post the "rah-rah homeschool" articles on Facebook. I was just pointing out that it was posted here in this thread as another negative and this is a thread dedicated to all the things in homeschooling "there oughta be a law" about. The question I keep asking in a long winded way are, which laws, why, what will they accomplish, why just for homeschool families? The only point I'm seeing is that it's easier for dysfunctional families to hide homeschooled children than public schooled children, but the legislation they're recommending doesn't address that, but legislates other things that are not directly related to homeschooling...but only to the homeschooled families.

[WishboneDawn]

I always struggle with what to say when a friend posts something on Facebook that highlights the "data" that supposedly proves that a homeschool education is better than a public school education. Here's one article that sums up the problems with the research nicely: Homeschooling Academic Superiority Exaggerated Over the Last Decade.

 

ETA: corrected my misspelling in the link title.

Yes. There was an idiotic infographic going around last year comparing homeschooling to public school and I posted it...And then tear it apart. I had a few public school friends who appreciated that. There's no room for conversation with others if our best arguments consist of faulty data and insults.

[La Texican]

Those aren't my arguements for homeschooling. My arguement for homeschooling is only made with myself and my husband (and, to an extent my grandmother and mother-in-law). I have made it clear that it's a hard decision because my local public elementary school is sweet, I love the kids, the teachers, and the principal there. Most people just hope they get kind teachers who care about the kids, and here I am turning it down. You might ask what I personally say has to do with what "the homeschool community" as a whole is saying. That's obviously my point. Homeschooling is a non-organization of non-members. It's not like a school system. It is like what existed for families before there ever was a school system. I'm doing my best to reject any paradigm that seeks to redefine homeschool as something other than that, not that one little opinion makes a difference. I oppose turning homeschooling into a system with members. I support anti-abuse and neglect laws by the State, as long as they address all families.