Educational Neglect: where would you place the bar?

[maize]

Lots of discussion lately about what educational neglect. I'm interested to know where people on this board think the bar should be for a minimal standard of education. 

 

Assuming a neurotypical child, what is the minimum standard of education you would want to see by age 14 to consider a child not educationally neglected? By age 18? Not your standard for your own children, but for any child--public school, private school, homeschool, unschool, whatever. 

 

And--what is the minimum standard you would find acceptable for your own children (I am thinking most of us expect more for our own children than bare minimums).

 

I am thinking a child who is not suffering from educational neglect should be prepared to function fully as an active, contributing, self-supporting person by the time they reach adulthood. Because childhood is the time to prepare for adulthood, there needs to be some real learning taking place during those years. I think my minimums at age fourteen would be the ability to read comfortably enough to read magazines, children's novels, official forms, web sites, etc. The ability to write a paragraph about some subject with reasonable spelling, grammar and punctuation (perfection not required). Basic ability to navigate and use common technology such as computers. Understanding and comfortable use of basic arithmetic--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division (long division not obligatory); ability to tell time and understand elapsed time, calendars, etc.; familiarity with and ability to calculate and perform simple transactions with money.

 

By age 18, in addition to the above I would want to see familiarity with and ability to perform basic operations with decimals, fractions, and percents; an general understanding of debt and interest; familiarity with common measuring systems and units. The ability to write emails, a basic resume, and several decently constructed paragraphs about a single subject. General overview knowledge of significant history and science, basic understanding of the workings of the government of their state/country.  Ability to read and understand textbooks at a junior high level or above, news articles, and instruction manuals. Basic understanding of principles of nutrition and health. Oh, and the ability to navigate ordinary social interactions and also to navigate physically through their environment (familiarity with public transportation and/or driving ability). 

 

This is generally very utilitarian, but hopefully a level of education that would allow a motivated individual to not only function in society but to take advantage of formal or informal opportunities to further their own education.

 

For my own children, assuming again neurotypical development, my minimum is a basic college preparatory education including math through at least algebra 2 (preferably pre-calc or higher), the ability to read at a college level, write an essay and a research paper, understanding of both general and some specific topics in history, basic understanding of the principles of physical and biological science--and the ability to cook a decent meal for themselves and do their own laundry :D Oh, and the development of some skill or hobby for enjoyment and recreation. Of course, I hope for much more--but if push came to shove these are the basics I would really want to see covered.

[Hunter]

I committed education neglect with my older son. It was either ME committing educational neglect while he at least worked out on the docks building up his body and his character, or the SCHOOL committing educational neglect while he sat on his butt at the back of a classroom with a bunch of fellow delinquents. 

 

I chose to let him go out to work on the docks. It was the RIGHT choice and I have never regretted it.

[shinyhappypeople]

I don't define educational neglect by whether or not a child achieves certain academic milestones.  I define it by whether he or she is being offered consistent instruction in reading, writing, and math.  

 

It becomes a little trickier when you consider unschooling families.  Maybe it's just a matter of making sure that their children have consistent access to books, tools, and experiences that facilitate developing the essential skills (reading, etc.).  

 

ETA: I'm amending my statement.  I think the standards for unschoolers apply to ALL families.  I don't think there should be different standards based on stated philosophy.

 

 

[shinyhappypeople]

I committed education neglect with my older son. It was either ME committing educational neglect while he at least worked out on the docks building up his body and his character, or the SCHOOL committing educational neglect while he sat on his butt at the back of a classroom with a bunch of fellow delinquents. 

 

I chose to let him go out to work on the docks. It was the RIGHT choice and I have never regretted it.

 

But, your son already had the essential skills (3 Rs), right?  It wasn't neglect as much as it was "work study." :)  It's what he needed at that time.  

 

Of course, this is coming form someone who is skeptical of the "enforced schooling until 16 (or 18)" mindset. 

[kiana]

Quite honestly, I think there are different levels of minima (and please note that all of these apply to neurotypical children) :

 

a) What I would consider an ideal education would be a child educated to reach their potential in at least one area (which does not have to be formally academic -- it could be musical, artistic, agricultural) while sufficiently equipped in other areas to not close doors, should they desire to pursue further education.

 

b.) What I would consider a minimal education would be one which sufficiently equips a child to enter college-level academic or vocational classes at a community college, or an apprenticeship program, without needing developmental work. I would consider less than that neglectful -- *but* if it hit at least level c), it would not reach the level of sufficiently neglectful that I would consider reporting it. If it were someone I knew, though, I would encourage them to do better and offer all the help I could.

 

c) What I would consider a sub-minimal education would be one that equips a child to be able to hold a low-wage job -- i.e. be able to read and understand what they read at at least the 8th grade level, be able to do mathematics with the aid of a calculator to at least the pre-algebra level, especially including counting change. I would consider less than this not just neglectful, but abusive. While I would start out encouragingly and attempting to problem-solve, if push came to shove and the parents were resistant to teaching basic math and reading, this is something I would report. (note that this would require a neurotypical child to be at least four grades behind grade level).

[umsami]

Agree with what maize said.

 

Hmmm…for a NT child, any child…by age 14, I'd like to see:

 

* reading/writing to the 8th grade level

* know how to use a dictionary

* computer literacy…able to send an email, do a search, etc.

* above makes me think that basic keyboarding skills is almost a requirement

* math to pre-algebra

* consumer math knowledge

 

And ideally either ready to enter into an apprenticeship/vocational program or continue in a college prep program.  I think that's where the US goes wrong and continues to go wrong. We push everybody towards college…even those who aren't well suited…even for careers where an apprenticeship would work just as well without the debt.

 

 

[maize]

Agree with what maize said.

 

Hmmm…for a NT child, any child…by age 14, I'd like to see:

 

* reading/writing to the 8th grade level

* know how to use a dictionary

* computer literacy…able to send an email, do a search, etc.

* above makes me think that basic keyboarding skills is almost a requirement

* math to pre-algebra

* consumer math knowledge

 

And ideally either ready to enter into an apprenticeship/vocational program or continue in a college prep program. I think that's where the US goes wrong and continues to go wrong. We push everybody towards college…even those who aren't well suited…even for careers where an apprenticeship would work just as well without the debt.

I agree that college prep should not be the presumptive goal for every student. Vocational training/apprenticeships, starting during the teen years and leading directly to decent employment prospects, should be more readily available and acceptable.

[Mimm]

This was just recently asked on the Chat board (like a couple weeks ago) so I'll just repost what I posted there since I don't have new thoughts on it. :)

 

I consider it educational neglect when a child is wildly behind what the majority of his peers can reasonably be expected to do and there's no explanation, like a learning disability or other circumstance, and no plan to get him on track and caught up. Whatever the plan is, is fine, but there just needs to be one.

 

I would consider it educational neglect when the parents' religious views are to intentionally keep their children ignorant for the purpose of limiting their options in this world. When girls are intentionally prepared only to be homemakers, when boys have no choice but to go into the family business.

 

I consider it educational neglect when a parent is "unschooling" but in reality, her children are sitting around playing video games or something of that nature and month after month, year after year, the child simply isn't being educated. (Radical unschooling, yay.)

 

If you're interested in reading other answers:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528131-so-educational-neglect-in-a-homeschool-setting-your-line-in-the-sand/

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

Frankly, I don't think high school should be mandatory. It should be made available to all but a lot of kids should be doing vocational training/apprenticeships rather than high school.

 

I would say that it's educational neglect if a neurotypical student hasn't mastered basic literacy and math to pre-algebra/very basic algebra 1 level. Students should be able to solve basic linear equations but I don't think that everyone needs to master the more advanced algebra 1 topics.

 

Now what I very much disagree with is the practice of tracking students into non-college prep secondary programs based on gender, race/ethnicity, or anything other than the individual student's own abilities and interests.

[Sdel]

I define educational neglect as a consistent lack of instruction alongside a lack of concern.  For me, neglect is characterized by selfishness or apathy from the parent as the reason why they fail to provide basic needs or reasonably protect from harmful conditions. 

 

I can respect or accept a wide range of educational decisions made by parents as long as they are being made from an informed and purposeful ideology with some evidence that the parent IS actually attempting to provide some level of education or access to regular instruction.  Can children be educationally neglected even within the public school system, well, yes they can be.  There are many more parents that don't bother with concerning themselves in their children's education than there are that do, however, they are usually still providing their children with exposure to education with regular instruction by teachers who, theoretically, do care about education. 

 

I'll admit, neglect is a hot button topic for me because my family has two significant issues involving neglect.  One of them just so happens to be educational neglect.  One of my pre-teen nephews is autistic, a fairly high functioning autistic. He's well fed, clean, and a generally taken care of kid.  He still suffers a significant amount of neglect from both parents.  Neither parent is really his caregiver; dad won't spend more than 2 hours at a time with him and mom is always off working or "doing her own thing" and is generally emotionally immature, co-dependent and makes horrible life decisions.  My MIL and is older sister are the people who has taken care of him for most of his childhood, and the older sister also did most of the care-taking for grandma (who raised the sister also).  He is home schooled because the school doesn't want to deal with him (small, rural school with few resources) and his parents were tired of dealing with the school getting on to them to about the various neglect issues so the solution was to just remove him.  He is given access to an online school, but the only person around to ensure that he does it is my MIL who is physically disabled and hasn't been able to force the issue in years, so he just simply refuses to do it and even if he does do it, no one is around to help if he has questions and he is *significantly* behind.  On top of that, no one works with him to overcome the issues he has due to being autistic.  Honestly, one of my other nephews is a much lower functioning autistic who will never be able to live by himself and he has better life prognosis than this child, who is *FAR* more functioning, simply because his parents cared enough to work with him on his issues. 

 

Stefanie

[Reefgazer]

I agree with the bolded, but this is such a broad statement (you could be nearly illiterate and still function as a low-paid laborer) it encompasses nearly every educational level.  While I am preparing my children as best I can for a top-quality university education, my acceptance of what others do for their children is probably far outside what you might consider acceptable.  That is because I believe that a resourceful child can run a business or work without much education at all.  Would the pay and economic level be acceptable to me for my children?  No.  But what other's shoot for is their business.

Lots of discussion lately about what educational neglect. I'm interested to know where people on this board think the bar should be for a minimal standard of education. 

 

Assuming a neurotypical child, what is the minimum standard of education you would want to see by age 14 to consider a child not educationally neglected? By age 18? Not your standard for your own children, but for any child--public school, private school, homeschool, unschool, whatever. 

 

And--what is the minimum standard you would find acceptable for your own children (I am thinking most of us expect more for our own children than bare minimums).

 

I am thinking a child who is not suffering from educational neglect should be prepared to function fully as an active, contributing, self-supporting person by the time they reach adulthood. Because childhood is the time to prepare for adulthood, there needs to be some real learning taking place during those years. I think my minimums at age fourteen would be the ability to read comfortably enough to read magazines, children's novels, official forms, web sites, etc. The ability to write a paragraph about some subject with reasonable spelling, grammar and punctuation (perfection not required). Basic ability to navigate and use common technology such as computers. Understanding and comfortable use of basic arithmetic--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division (long division not obligatory); ability to tell time and understand elapsed time, calendars, etc.; familiarity with and ability to calculate and perform simple transactions with money.

 

By age 18, in addition to the above I would want to see familiarity with and ability to perform basic operations with decimals, fractions, and percents; an general understanding of debt and interest; familiarity with common measuring systems and units. The ability to write emails, a basic resume, and several decently constructed paragraphs about a single subject. General overview knowledge of significant history and science, basic understanding of the workings of the government of their state/country.  Ability to read and understand textbooks at a junior high level or above, news articles, and instruction manuals. Basic understanding of principles of nutrition and health. Oh, and the ability to navigate ordinary social interactions and also to navigate physically through their environment (familiarity with public transportation and/or driving ability). 

 

This is generally very utilitarian, but hopefully a level of education that would allow a motivated individual to not only function in society but to take advantage of formal or informal opportunities to further their own education.

 

For my own children, assuming again neurotypical development, my minimum is a basic college preparatory education including math through at least algebra 2 (preferably pre-calc or higher), the ability to read at a college level, write an essay and a research paper, understanding of both general and some specific topics in history, basic understanding of the principles of physical and biological science--and the ability to cook a decent meal for themselves and do their own laundry :D Oh, and the development of some skill or hobby for enjoyment and recreation. Of course, I hope for much more--but if push came to shove these are the basics I would really want to see covered.

 

[Tracy]

I think that you cannot talk about educational neglect in a vacuum.  You start out with the assumption that the student is neurotypical.  Firstly, that is hard to define.  Also, aren't we making assumptions about the family, too?  Such as there are no other circumstances that are more urgent than education.  Because truly there are reasons to place other things higher in priority than education.  If one of us were dying, education would be much lower on my priority list.  Likewise if we were starving or homeless.  There are lots of people out there who would think that education was so important as to take children out of a family with these circumstances so that they can go to school.  

 

It makes me nervous to see these discussions.  Though I have fairly high academic standards (my dh and I both have advanced degrees), I know that if we were in dire circumstances, our priorities would be different, and I don't think that it would be anyone's business to step in and override our family's decisions.  

[MistyMountain]

I don't have a bar for the achievement of other people's children. Neurotypical children of at least average intelligence can have severe learning disorders that make learning to read, write and do math very difficult. Some kids may only be able to get to a certain level even without learning difficulties. A kid can be very behind but they are getting a good education. To me it is educational neglect when there isn't an effort to educate a child however that may be. It doesn't matter if it is done at a public school, private school or at home. I also think breaks for life's circumstances are fine and that it doesn't have to go until 18 for all kids. Something must be done to educate the child so they would have some skills that allow them to function when they reach adulthood.

 

My goal for my children is a degree in a useful field. I have goals for childhood too but I am aware that they may not achieve what I hope they will and that is okay.

[Paige]

What's the opposite of neglect- would it be care, or attention? I think educational neglect would be the lack of things that show care or attention to education. It would mean not knowing or caring whether or not a child is learning, not doing anything about the child's education, and not providing opportunities for education. Neglect is a passive verb, in my opinion, because it implies lack of activity and is defined by the absence of activity. 

 

There must be some activity in the home or school that is different than what a truant would be doing. Being a truant is illegal, so there must be some activity going on that makes your child different than a truant. A paper calling you a homeschooler in the superintendent's office is not enough. It can't be that the difference between a public schooled child who is truant- whose parents don't put him on the bus because they can't be bothered-and a homeschooled child is only that one parent submitted a declaration of intent. 

 

Educational neglect, IMO, is not about outcomes but about activity.

[Guest]

What I experienced in public school in the 1970s was gross educational neglect and i can only hope that there is a special place in hell for those who were responsible, because they certainly will not be held accountable in this world.

 

I hate to think what would have happened to me if my parents hadn't afterschooled me.

 

I wish I could communicate that to them.

[HS Mom in NC]

I agree that there are times when formal schooling (at home and/or in institutional settings) should be ended, such as with a child who is completely uncooperative and disruptive:

I committed education neglect with my older son. It was either ME committing educational neglect while he at least worked out on the docks building up his body and his character, or the SCHOOL committing educational neglect while he sat on his butt at the back of a classroom with a bunch of fellow delinquents. 

 

I chose to let him go out to work on the docks. It was the RIGHT choice and I have never regretted it.

 

And under dramatic situations for a period of time such as:

Yes, there are certainly circumstances in which formal schooling should be put on hold.

I have two homeschooling friends who have experienced the deaths of their own children. Yes, it takes some time to get back into the swing of things after that happens. A year or two might pass with no formal academics. Putting the other children in public/private school would have been even more disruptive to the family during their time of grief. Homeschooling just got put on hold for a while. Instead, they comforted each other while they tried to put the pieces of their lives back together.

I have another homeschooling friend who died from cancer. During her last year with us, not much formal schooling, if any, was accomplished. Again, that year was spent as a family, together. (After her death, the children did enroll in a private school.)

And we ourselves didn't do much formal schooling for the year that we were living on the road. Anyone could have called the authorities on us to report us as vagrants with children who weren't being properly educated. It was the truth. However, in our case, and with the cases mentioned above, real life took temporary precedence and eventually we did get our formal education taken care of.

I like to think of the 18 years of a child's education as a continuous series of sprints and not so much as one long marathon.

 

The one time I have recommended turning someone in for educational neglect (in a current thread) was a parent choosing not to provide instruction  in the home and choosing not to send the child to an institutional setting so someone else can school them.  This is a rare situation and the parent openly admits not teaching the children because she said she doesn't have time. 

 

That's why I think investigating individual cases of educational neglect are better than regulating and overseeing homeschoolers in general.  Individual cases can be looked at in detail and in context and corrected according to their unique situations rather than forcing a one size fits all standard on everyone.
 

[Tanikit]

I think educational neglect occurs when a child has not been sufficiently educated to be able to survive in the world - I also think that a child needs to be able to do as an adult what they would like to do in order to feel fulfilled - for some this would require little formal education and for others it would require a lot. Its also difficult to say how much influence the adults would have in these choices - you cannot separate a child from the people they grow up around and that will influence their choices regarding career options. People do not live in a vacuum - and children in particular are influenced by their parents and friends and even just people they are around - if they have never heard of an option for them as an adult then they will not choose it.

 

This means that educational neglect would vary based on a number of things: what does the child want, what world do the children live in (are they part of the global community or is it unlikely that they will ever enter the global community). It would also be determined by what the future holds - what we learnt as children is not helping us as much as it was expected to help us - we have had to learn very fast that things change rapidly and that one cannot rely on a job for years and years based on what Daddy did - on top of that technology and the value of money and the ability of someone to provide for themselves (run their own businesses) have all changed and I imagine that the world will continue to change.

 

Nonetheless the acquisition of most information is achieved by being able to read and so I would imagine that this should be taught for anyone to have a hope of educating themselves. Once one can read, one can actually teach oneself mathematics and copying letters and learning to write is not totally out of reach though a basic education should ideally provide these too. Finally, something that is often forgotten in a basic education is to teach a child to communicate - orally (since I touched on writing already) - many children these days are not taught to consider their audience, not taught to be polite, not taught how to express themselves clearly and to adapt to the person receiving the message - on top of that with social communication through technology many of these skills are being forgotten even more than they were and need even more (not less) emphasis. I would think this would be an important part of being able to survive as an adult.

[Lolly]

I do not think there should be any standards. What people do with their own children's education is up to them. The truth is that an adult with no mental deficiencies can catch up to speed fairly quickly if they so chose. If a child learns almost nothing academically, they can chose to learn as an adult. Yes, it is a hard choice to make. Yes, it would have been easier to do when they were younger (because they had more time). But, it can be done. I educationally neglected my eldest. I tried ps, it didn't work. I tried teaching her at home, it didn't work. Honestly, we were about down to do her physical harm or let her be. I let her be. She will soon graduate college with two separate majors and two minors with an overall gpa of almost a 4.0. It seems my neglecting her didn't harm her all that much.

[Guest]

During the collapse of the Soviet Union:

 

A lot of people, more and more during the "stagnation" period of the 1980's, felt nothing but contempt for the system, did what little they had to do to get by (night watchman and furnace stoker were favorite jobs among the highly educated) and got all their pleasure from their friends, from their reading, or from nature.

 

so perhaps my 2e child feels the same way when he presents as a "nice salt-of-the-earth average Joe" who is well loved and respected by the other grunts in the National Guard and at his retail job.

 

During the Depression of the 1930s (Do we still call that "The Great Depression" or am I dating myself and making people think I don't understand what happened in 2008?) my grandfather said that he could always tell a well educated man because he was never bored, no matter how poor he was.

 

I have certainly cried my share of tears about the waste of my child's potential, but am slowly coming around to appreciating what an amazing person he is and knowing that my grandfather would be proud of me for seeing to it that he is, unquestionably, a well educated man.

 

[IfIOnly]

Educational neglect to me occurs when the child does not receive instruction at his level of need, the pacing is too slow, and/or the depth is too shallow for the ability of the child.

 

The child should have the opportunity to be educated according to his ability.

 

 

Hm, I would think according to that definition most public schooled kids are neglected.  I posted a video on Facebook of my son reciting all the sounds of the 72 basic phongrams in the English language, and my public schooled friends of all ages and several countries were blown away.  None of them had phonics instruction near as thorough as my children.  I think most children in our country are capable of learning and memorizing the basic phonogram sounds.  I don't think that most are educationally neglected though.

[maize]

Educational neglect to me occurs when the child does not receive instruction at his level of need, the pacing is too slow, and/or the depth is too shallow for the ability of the child.

 

The child should have the opportunity to be educated according to his ability.

 

That sounds like a very high bar to me, requiring exceptional awareness on the part of teachers/educational facilitators. I think this is more a description of an ideal education than one that is merely not neglectful. Ideal is nice, a good thing to strive for--but there is a lot of space between ideal and neglect.

[Laura Corin]

In UK terms, the absolute minimum would be passes at maths and English GCSE exams, which are normally taken at age 16.  Without those, you will have a hard time finding even very basic jobs, or accessing apprenticeships.

 

For my boys: the opportunity to go as far and as fast as will fulfil their potential and aspirations.

 

L

[Pen]

What's the opposite of neglect- would it be care, or attention? I think educational neglect would be the lack of things that show care or attention to education. It would mean not knowing or caring whether or not a child is learning, not doing anything about the child's education, and not providing opportunities for education. Neglect is a passive verb, in my opinion, because it implies lack of activity and is defined by the absence of activity. 

 

There must be some activity in the home or school that is different than what a truant would be doing. Being a truant is illegal, so there must be some activity going on that makes your child different than a truant. A paper calling you a homeschooler in the superintendent's office is not enough. It can't be that the difference between a public schooled child who is truant- whose parents don't put him on the bus because they can't be bothered-and a homeschooled child is only that one parent submitted a declaration of intent. 

 

Educational neglect, IMO, is not about outcomes but about activity.

 

 

Like this. And educational neglect can happen in schools as well as at home.

 

But I do think outcomes have some part in it...    For one thing, they are a way, along the road, to discern whether what is being done for a particular child is helping that child learn. Or not.

 

 

[Pen]

I do not think there should be any standards. What people do with their own children's education is up to them. The truth is that an adult with no mental deficiencies can catch up to speed fairly quickly if they so chose. If a child learns almost nothing academically, they can chose to learn as an adult. Yes, it is a hard choice to make. Yes, it would have been easier to do when they were younger (because they had more time). But, it can be done. I educationally neglected my eldest. I tried ps, it didn't work. I tried teaching her at home, it didn't work. Honestly, we were about down to do her physical harm or let her be. I let her be. She will soon graduate college with two separate majors and two minors with an overall gpa of almost a 4.0. It seems my neglecting her didn't harm her all that much.

 

 

Your dd sounds unusual to me, not typical--including very strong willed. I am not sure that "educational neglect" is the same as choosing to not physically harm a child who adamantly refuses to be educated. 

 

I am also trying to understand her later success. She taught herself to read as an adult at the beginning of college???? Or found a college with remedial reading, math etc., so as to catch up her first year there??? How did she get admitted with no educational skills?

[IsabelC]

I think educational neglect or abuse occurs when the parents, teachers or other responsible adults unnecessarily impede the child's natural ability to learn.

 

A child at home might have her learning impeded by living in a print-poor environment (parents own few or no books and do not use a library).

Or by the adult being unavailable (too busy with work, incapacitated by drug dependency, etc).

Or by the child being required to work excessively long hours (in family business, caring for siblings,etc).

 

A child in school might also have her learning impeded, by a teacher who refuses to allow her to work above grade level.

Or by a bullying situation where the child feels unsafe.

Or by policies that punish the child for other students' behavior.

 

A child who is malnourished or has untreated medical issues is likely to have her learning capacity compromised whether at home or at school.

 

Obviously there are many possible scenarios which would reduce the likelihood of a given child reaching her learning potential, so in that sense, general neglect or abuse would encompass educational neglect or abuse. But I don't think it's such a simple matter to create a list of Must Learn items that apply to every child (they tried that and came up with Common Core, and look at the controversy surrounding it). It sounds eminently sensible to declare that every child should know enough math to balance her budget as an adult, but what right do we have to judge when we do not understand what it would take to get some children to the required level? If a "neurotypical" child refuses to learn pre algebra, to what lengths should the parents go to force her? Might other things in life be even more crucial than education? If your child had a week left to live, would you spend that time punishing her for refusing to complete her math? OK that is an extreme example, but what I am trying to say is that children are not widgets in a factory, and we should not be applying some sort of quality assurance to them as if they were.

[MiMi 4under3]

 

 my grandfather said that he could always tell a well educated man because he was never bored, no matter how poor he was.

 

 

I love this!

[stutterfish]

I think Maize's list is roughly what I would hope for in my kids, but even if they don't achieve everything on that list (and I suspect some wont) then I think they'll still find a way to have a good life. I've known illiterate adults (those who could barely sign their own names) function very well in their jobs, raise wonderful families and lead useful and happy lives. Their academic ability may have limited their choices, but they've done fine despite it, or perhaps even because of it. On the contrary I've met some well-educated, academically successful people who (to me) appear to have quite dysfunctional, miserable lives. So, while there is my own ideal level of attainment, I wouldn't think to judge a cut-off for educational neglect for others or presume to predict the impact it has on future happiness.

 

I have this quote from Gatto taped to my kitchen door. I find it a useful benchmark to remind me of my priorities when things aren't going according to plan. It sums up what I aspire to in an education:

 

 

"Whatever an education is, it should make you a unique individual, not a conformist; it should furnish you with an original spirit with which to tackle the big challenges; it should allow you to find values which will be your road map through life; it should make you spiritually rich, a person who loves whatever you are doing, wherever you are, whomever you are with; it should teach you what is important: how to live and how to die."

 

 

[duckens]

My list for avoiding "educational neglect" is really short.  IMO, there is a really barebones level of education that ALL children need.  Oh, yes, I believe that "more is better" when it comes to education and expectations, but at it's most basic level:

1) All children must learn to read (if intellectually able).  If you can't read, it is extremely difficult to learn in any other category.  If you can't read, even finding a restroom in an unfamiliar place is a challenge that is heartbreaking to those of us who take our reading skills for granted.

Yes, math is important, too, but if one learns to read, one can learn math at a later time if one really needs to. 

Downsides of not learning math:

 

a) Math is learned in a series, building, year after year.  If you don't learn your basic math facts until age 14, at what age will you learn fractions? algebra? mutivariable calculus?  Possible, but not probable.

b ) If you don't learn math, there are whole categories of jobs you can't take.  "Math is the language of Science," so no higher level science. No accounting.  No engineering.  Even being a cashier requires math skills.  But you could be an artist, a writer, a translator, or a low-level construction worker.

c) you are at risk for being exploited financially.  Yeah, with Duckens, it always comes down to money.  It is the lens through which she sees the world.

2) Do you have a plan?  This means that there is continued educational improvement.  You don't stop once your kids can read Frog and Toad fluently.

Even for unschooling families, this may be, "Encourage our children in their personal interests through library trips, museum trips, online information, and outside mentors."  If your child is interested in Ancient Egypt, you get them the supplies to mummify a chicken.

Or unschooling families may just say, "Before 2pm, work on yer stuff!"  This implies that Phineas and Ferb videos will not be watched at this time.  But it is a plan.

If these two requirements are met, then I don't want to pass judgment on someone else's homeschool.  I may not agree with their system.  I know I am at the other end of the spectrum of over-scheduling my children.  But to me, this is the bare-bones minimum.

[Lolly]

Your dd sounds unusual to me, not typical--including very strong willed. I am not sure that "educational neglect" is the same as choosing to not physically harm a child who adamantly refuses to be educated. 

 

I am also trying to understand her later success. She taught herself to read as an adult at the beginning of college???? Or found a college with remedial reading, math etc., so as to catch up her first year there??? How did she get admitted with no educational skills?

 

She is unusual. She is strong willed. The definitions of educational neglect that are being put out here would definitely qualify her. The reasons for educationally neglecting a child can be quite numerous, which is why I do not believe there should be any standards. The very few whose parents would chose this for their children are not worth any laws/standards being in place. I feel that laws on educational neglect would harm more children than they would help. 

 

As far as her success goes, You are assuming that people need to be taught directly in order to learn. The ability of a person to self educate is tremendous and under rated. She learned, just not in any type of instructional manner. She learned what she wanted to learn, when she wanted to learn it. Yes, she taught herself to read, only at 3 not at the beginning of college. She just sort of started reading. Math she kind of picked up here and there. She taught herself Japanese starting at age 12. (It is currently one of her majors.) Most of her time was spent drawing. She once spent 48 straight hours drawing eyes. She became interested in make up and special effects. You should see the stuff she can do! Wait, you might not want to...most of it is quite gross... She started off at CC. She had no desire to leave home at that point. The only remedial thing she needed was college algebra, which I don't actually consider remedial though many on these boards do. Went straight from it to calculus. She had been writing since she was tiny, so that wasn't really a problem. I did sign her up for Write at Home once when she was  9 or 10 because she loved to write stories. Only, she scared the teacher with her work...He sort of suggested I get her some counseling because someone her age shouldn't write stuff like that (think Stephen King). He was wanting rainbows and unicorns. After that assignment, she quite writing completely for years. Once she got to college, her teachers were ecstatic to get to read something that wasn't canned/formulaic cr@p... Since she hadn't had instruction there, she produced work that was entertaining to read. So, by definition, she was unschooled. Only, I never helped her with anything. The times I tried were met with disaster.

[Pen]

She is unusual. She is strong willed. The definitions of educational neglect that are being put out here would definitely qualify her. The reasons for educationally neglecting a child can be quite numerous, which is why I do not believe there should be any standards. The very few whose parents would chose this for their children are not worth any laws/standards being in place. I feel that laws on educational neglect would harm more children than they would help. 

 

As far as her success goes, You are assuming that people need to be taught directly in order to learn. The ability of a person to self educate is tremendous and under rated. She learned, just not in any type of instructional manner. She learned what she wanted to learn, when she wanted to learn it. Yes, she taught herself to read, only at 3 not at the beginning of college. She just sort of started reading. Math she kind of picked up here and there. She taught herself Japanese starting at age 12. (It is currently one of her majors.) Most of her time was spent drawing. She once spent 48 straight hours drawing eyes. She became interested in make up and special effects. You should see the stuff she can do! Wait, you might not want to...most of it is quite gross... She started off at CC. She had no desire to leave home at that point. The only remedial thing she needed was college algebra, which I don't actually consider remedial though many on these boards do. Went straight from it to calculus. She had been writing since she was tiny, so that wasn't really a problem. I did sign her up for Write at Home once when she was  9 or 10 because she loved to write stories. Only, she scared the teacher with her work...He sort of suggested I get her some counseling because someone her age shouldn't write stuff like that (think Stephen King). He was wanting rainbows and unicorns. After that assignment, she quite writing completely for years. Once she got to college, her teachers were ecstatic to get to read something that wasn't canned/formulaic cr@p... Since she hadn't had instruction there, she produced work that was entertaining to read. So, by definition, she was unschooled. Only, I never helped her with anything. The times I tried were met with disaster.

 

 

The reason I thought she must have been catching up at the start of college is that you had previously written:

 

"The truth is that an adult with no mental deficiencies can catch up to speed fairly quickly if they so chose. If a child learns almost nothing academically, they can chose to learn as an adult." And then went on to write about your dd in the same paragraph as if (the way I read it) she were an example supporting your paragraph's thesis statement of almost no learning until adulthood.

 

My personal experience has been different than that. Things I had insufficient background in became terribly difficult by college age, and even more so now. I do have 2 Ivy League degrees both with honors, but I ended up in a humanities area rather than science because I had had insufficient math and science in grade and high school to be able to manage a science major at a top level maths and sciences type university.

 

I do see adults in local literacy programs learning to read, but it seems to be a tremendous struggle, not something that come easily, for the majority of them. I suspect that the plasticity of the brain for certain types of learning declines.

[Lolly]

The reason I thought she must have been catching up at the start of college is that you had previously written:

 

"The truth is that an adult with no mental deficiencies can catch up to speed fairly quickly if they so chose. If a child learns almost nothing academically, they can chose to learn as an adult." And then went on to write about your dd in the same paragraph as if (the way I read it) she were an example supporting your paragraph's thesis statement of almost no learning until adulthood.

 

My personal experience has been different than that. Things I had insufficient background in became terribly difficult by college age, and even more so now. I do have 2 Ivy League degrees both with honors, but I ended up in a humanities area rather than science because I had had insufficient math and science in grade and high school to be able to manage a science major at a top level maths and sciences type university.

 

I do see adults in local literacy programs learning to read, but it seems to be a tremendous struggle, not something that come easily, for the majority of them. I suspect that the plasticity of the brain for certain types of learning declines.

 

The adults you see in the local literacy programs most likely have learning disabilities. They have more than likely had instruction. It is extremely unlikely that an adult in our society did not receive an education in reading when they were growing up. I have a dd who fits this description. She is currently in remedial reading. She has had intensive reading instruction/help her entire life (and wanted it). Yes, the proper type of dyslexics. She still cannot read well, and most likely never will. The remedial instruction she is receiving right now certainly isn't going to help her!!!! (Choose the word that has a negative connotation...a)visitor, b)caller, c) boarder, d) guest... None of them have a negative vibe!) 

 

Math, I'm guessing that you probably just aren't math oriented. Most people aren't. Basic math can be learned in a year. If it truly is a problem of not having access to upper level math, that can be made up. If you weren't able to start out in calc, it is possible to add on a little time in school if you want it bad enough. Going to an Ivy league school in the sciences might not be possible, but there are plenty of other schools out there. I'm not too big on Ivy schools anyway. I actually would not want my child to attend one. 

[...................]

The adults you see in the local literacy programs most likely have learning disabilities. They have more than likely had instruction. It is extremely unlikely that an adult in our society did not receive an education in reading when they were growing up. I have a dd who fits this description. She is currently in remedial reading. She has had intensive reading instruction/help her entire life (and wanted it). Yes, the proper type of dyslexics. She still cannot read well, and most likely never will. The remedial instruction she is receiving right now certainly isn't going to help her!!!! (Choose the word that has a negative connotation...a)visitor, b)caller, c) boarder, d) guest... None of them have a negative vibe!) 

 

Math, I'm guessing that you probably just aren't math oriented. Most people aren't. Basic math can be learned in a year. If it truly is a problem of not having access to upper level math, that can be made up. If you weren't able to start out in calc, it is possible to add on a little time in school if you want it bad enough. Going to an Ivy league school in the sciences might not be possible, but there are plenty of other schools out there. I'm not too big on Ivy schools anyway. I actually would not want my child to attend one. 

I don't know where you live, but I have lived in two states absolutely inundated with people from other countries, many of whom barely learned to read in their native languag eand are also learning a new language and learning to read at the same time.  I would imagine that 95% of the adults learning to read that PP is referring to, fall into that category.  :)  

[Sahamamama]

Hmmm... I realize it was long ago, but my maternal grandfather never finished 8th grade. At that time, the schools didn't recognize dyslexia or most other LDs, so they neglected him. He still did well in life. My father also never finished 8th grade (same story), and he did well in life. These men, when they were young men, were better suited for life outside the classroom. Like Hunter's son, they went to work, and never looked back. They gave up being school boys, in order to become working men. I don't find that tragic, actually.

 

I think we do so many students a disservice by keeping them warehoused in classrooms too long. College prep isn't everyone's cup of tea, you know? And there are opportunities to challenge oneself to achieve, rather than have it all spoon-fed through mandatory schooling. My husband finished college only after we were married, had three babies, one house, 2.5 jobs, and a stray cat. That was so much fun, I wish we could do it again! What a challenge, to keep it going. But we did it -- we grew up and handled it. It was the best thing for us both. And, hubby's doing well in life, I think. He married me, didn't he? ;)

 

So... I think character and determination, motivated by felt needs, can make a way. There will be suffering on the path to maturity and self-sufficiency, there will be hardship and sacrifice. Those are lessons to learn and live. Piling on more and more academic requirements will not, in and of itself, create better people of solid character with a good work ethic who lead compassionate and responsible lives.

 

Perhaps many college brats -- I include my spoiled self in this group -- learn that lesson later in life? Our academic achievements feed our naive arrogance, until we meet people without those achievements who are better people than we are.

[...................]

I just don't have the brain space to worry about anybody educationally neglecting their kids anymore.  I mean, we've discussed this issue so many times over the years and of course it's fair to come at it from new angles if you are still interested...  :)

 

BUT in my life, there are so many other atrocities, and so many people doing their own thing, and so many different factors and scenarios and gifts and talents and lack thereof...I mean...I disagree with people whose kids are way below grade level and yet are growing up in a middle or upper middle class home, and the parents are too "whatever" to care that their kids receive a great education.  I certainly don't get it.  

 

But, I just got to the point where, at this point I realize there are all kinds of parents doing all kinds of stupid or lazy things with their kids.  I love it how there's a guy who drops his 9 year old daughter off, alone, to children's sunday school and jets, leaving her alone with a male teacher.  Or, the mom who was in the park gosspping while the 3 little girls she was watching were playing with broken vodka bottle left by the homeless the day before, hundreds of shards of pieces in the girls hands.  I finally stopped and said, Hey girls does your mom know you are doing that?"  LOl couldn't help myself.

 

At some point you just have to look away from the stupidity.  

[Lolly]

I don't know where you live, but I have lived in two states absolutely inundated with people from other countries, many of whom barely learned to read in their native languag eand are also learning a new language and learning to read at the same time.  I would imagine that 95% of the adults learning to read that PP is referring to, fall into that category.   :)

 

Which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Learning to read a language you cannot speak is going to be more difficult. I know for certain it is for young children. I have some experience working with non native speaking children learning to read. Kids who would have picked reading up like breathing have difficulty reading when they do not speak the language. 

[Laura Corin]

 

So... I think character and determination, motivated by felt needs, can make a way. There will be suffering on the path to maturity and self-sufficiency, there will be hardship and sacrifice. Those are lessons to learn and live. Piling on more and more academic requirements will not, in and of itself, create better people of solid character with a good work ethic who lead compassionate and responsible lives.

 

 

But what about those without those personal resources?  People who may succumb to despair when faced with trying to make their way in the world with inadequate education?  Of course, we would all like our children to be go-ahead and independent, or to achieve those qualities through hard knocks.  But there are some (perhaps most?) who will be more likely to make a go of their lives with the opportunity of gaining a solid academic basis when young.

 

L

[Crimson Wife]

 My personal experience has been different than that. Things I had insufficient background in became terribly difficult by college age, and even more so now. I do have 2 Ivy League degrees both with honors, but I ended up in a humanities area rather than science because I had had insufficient math and science in grade and high school to be able to manage a science major at a top level maths and sciences type university.

 

DH and I went to an Ivy caliber university. He was an engineering major and I studied human biology. We saw PLENTY of classmates switch from a STEM major to a humanities major despite those individuals having graduated from some of the top private and affluent suburban public schools in the country. The truth is that the top colleges maintain a brutal grading curve in their STEM courses because they want to weed out most of their pre-meds and wannabe engineers in order to maintain high acceptance rates to grad schools. My college used to boast something like a 98% placement rate into med school on the first or second try. What that impressive statistic belies is the fact that something like 40% of my entering class was pre-med but only about 10% of the graduating class went into mediciine. I was one of those pre-med dropouts. I did continue to study science, but I didn't finish up the chem sequence nor did I ever take physics.

 

I took one science course over the summer at Boston University, and it was like night and day the difference in challenge level. I'm confident that I could've gotten through the pre-med sequence with a high GPA had I attended BU or another moderately selective college.

[Pen]

 

I took one science course over the summer at Boston University, and it was like night and day the difference in challenge level. I'm confident that I could've gotten through the pre-med sequence with a high GPA had I attended BU or another moderately selective college.

 

Yes. I even had a friend who was flunking out of our school, and switched to Brown which is itself an Ivy, but not as hard as ours was and had straight A's there.

 

But the point I had wanted to make was that in my own experience even as a kid considered "gifted" and that included in the math/sciences area, insufficient education is not so easy to make up quickly simply if one wishes to. I had had an excellent first public school till half way through 2nd grade, but later had a terrible, educationally neglectful public school, and then later a Catholic girl's school that had very poor academics, and finally 2 years at an excellent private school, but not enough to be really caught up -- but I did not know how behind I was till I found myself in the midst of Richard Rusczyk type students, trying to take Calculus 103, Chem 101, Physics 103 and a European Lit class first semester. (Bad advising was also significant!!!!) Actually my math prof tried to encourage me to major in math nonetheless, but that is another story. The main point is I don't buy the idea that if children are normal then they can teach themselves anything they want as adults, or do all of mathematics up to 12 grade level in a year,  even if they had no education prior to that. I think that there may be some children who do manage to have no education as children and then make it up as adults with no harmful effects, yes, but it is not the majority.

 

I also do not buy the idea that all the people I see trying to learn to read as adults are dyslexics who had plenty of non-neglectful educational opportunity as children. Many truly did not have meaningful educational opportunities in youth--whether dyslexic or not.

 

And there really are things that are harder to learn as an adult than as a child.

[Crimson Wife]

 

But the point I had wanted to make was that in my own experience even as a kid considered "gifted" and that included in the math/sciences area, insufficient education is not so easy to make up quickly simply if one wishes to. I had had an excellent first public school till half way through 2nd grade, but later had a terrible, educationally neglectful public school, and then later a Catholic girl's school that had very poor academics, and finally 2 years at an excellent private school, but not enough to be really caught up -- but I did not know how behind I was till I found myself in the midst of Richard Rusczyk type students, trying to take Calculus 103, Chem 101, Physics 103 and a European Lit class first semester. (Bad advising was also significant!!!!) Actually my math prof tried to encourage me to major in math nonetheless, but that is another story. The main point is I don't buy the idea that if children are normal then they can teach themselves anything they want as adults, or do all of mathematics up to 12 grade level in a year,  even if they had no education prior to that. I think that there may be some children who do manage to have no education as children and then make it up as adults with no harmful effects, yes, but it is not the majority.

 

Frankly, I think success at that tippy-top level is more dependent upon the student's ability than his/her educational background. Even the best K-12 schools are not going to turn a garden-variety bright student into someone who can compete with national math and science olympiad invitees. Because frankly, those are the level of students that are going to be taking the hard STEM courses at an Ivy caliber university.

 

[Farrar]

I stand by my feeling, which I've stated before on these sorts of threads, that the number one thing that screams educational neglect to me is parents who actively prevent a child from accessing education by not having books, curricula, internet, or any means available for a child to be educated.

 

I think when a child reaches the teen years unable to read, unable to write at least a short paragraph, and unable to do basic math, then strong questions are raised. However, like others are saying, I think you have to judge based on circumstances, looking in particular at what efforts have been made and at whether the child is NT or not.

[Reefgazer]

I wonder if it is more the individual prof in those weed out classes than the school.  I did not go to an ivy league school as an undergrad (majored in biology, minored in chemistry), but those statistics are similar to what I saw in my undergrad biology experience.  I just assumed they were run-of-the-mill stats for bio/pre-med majors everywhere, but maybe not.

DH and I went to an Ivy caliber university. He was an engineering major and I studied human biology. We saw PLENTY of classmates switch from a STEM major to a humanities major despite those individuals having graduated from some of the top private and affluent suburban public schools in the country. The truth is that the top colleges maintain a brutal grading curve in their STEM courses because they want to weed out most of their pre-meds and wannabe engineers in order to maintain high acceptance rates to grad schools. My college used to boast something like a 98% placement rate into med school on the first or second try. What that impressive statistic belies is the fact that something like 40% of my entering class was pre-med but only about 10% of the graduating class went into mediciine. I was one of those pre-med dropouts. I did continue to study science, but I didn't finish up the chem sequence nor did I ever take physics.

 

I took one science course over the summer at Boston University, and it was like night and day the difference in challenge level. I'm confident that I could've gotten through the pre-med sequence with a high GPA had I attended BU or another moderately selective college.

 

[Pen]

Frankly, I think success at that tippy-top level is more dependent upon the student's ability than his/her educational background. Even the best K-12 schools are not going to turn a garden-variety bright student into someone who can compete with national math and science olympiad invitees. Because frankly, those are the level of students that are going to be taking the hard STEM courses at an Ivy caliber university.

 

 

 

Only 3 of the girls from my class of over 100  at my girls Catholic school went on to college. There were quite a few more who could have done had they had a different education. Going on to any college is not for everyone, just as going to an Ivy is not, but certainly their options were limited by their education. Ones who have had marriages fail or husbands die or never found a husband have been very limited.

 

100% of my classmates from my final k-12 level school went on to top colleges, or top other options, such as Julliard, RADA, or music conservatory training. If the students had been switched, the ones from the latter school would mostly have not gone on to colleges at all, because the preparation was not sufficient--I know you find that hard to believe, but it is so--maybe a bit better than 3%, if only because the latter one was co-ed and there would not have been the idea that girls are supposed to get married and have babies operating as well as insufficient education and because the average intelligence was higher. But the calibre of education difference was night and day.

 

And it matters hugely. I know because I've had personal experience with  being a student at a number of schools ranging from abysmal to outstanding.  The best k-12 schools will not turn a dolt into a genius, but they will help a top student to achieve closer to his or her potential in ways that a low quality school will not do.

 

 

ETA: A Marva Collins or Jaime Escalante can also allow a child who seemed to others to be retarded or from a bad neighborhood and hopeless, to soar. I don't expect every teacher or school to be able to be at the 99.9th%ile of education excellence, and think in terms of legal decisions as to what is "educational neglect" for homeschool purposes, for example, that there needs to be a "good enough" standard. But I most assuredly disagree with the idea that no education is just fine, whether that is a brick and mortar school warehousing kids for years, or a homeschool providing no education. I do think unschooling can be wonderful for some children -- but if a child is not learning via unschooling then I think the approach needs to change. Ditto for classical or any other philosophy of education. The method may be fantastic for some children, but if it is not working for a particular child to be able to learn, then that child's education is being neglected.

[Crimson Wife]

 100% of my classmates from my final k-12 level school went on to top colleges, or top other options, such as Julliard, RADA, or music conservatory training.

 

Because the second school was an elite prep school that weeded out applicants lacking the ability to do a high level work. If we plotted the IQ's of the students at the two schools, there would likely be little overlap. I'm not saying that there is NO overlap, but when you compare a school that takes half or more of applicants with one that takes <10% of a higher-achieving applicant pool, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. We don't live in Lake Woebegone where every single student is above-average.

 

 

 

[Pen]

Because the second school was an elite prep school that weeded out applicants lacking the ability to do a high level work. If we plotted the IQ's of the students at the two schools, there would likely be little overlap. I'm not saying that there is NO overlap, but when you compare a school that takes half or more of applicants with one that takes <10% of a higher-achieving applicant pool, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. We don't live in Lake Woebegone where every single student is above-average.

 

 

 

Nor is every student probably below average either. One can take a Garfield High, a failing school in the Los Angeles barrio and get an excellent (actually there were 2 I believe) teacher, and with a lot of work students who could barely add can pass the Calculus AP (do well, in fact). Can every student there do that? No. But does the teaching make a difference? Oh, most assuredly yes.

 

 

 

 

YMMV  Obviously your mileage does vary.  

[kiwik]

It is also a bar that moves. An 8th grade education was fine 100 or possibly even 50 years ago. Now it would be neglectful.

[musicianmom]

These are the people who are both gifted and well prepared.

 

What I am seeing are high schoolers who are gifted and being offered nothing more than gen ed. They are the top of their high school, take the highest level courses, get the top grades, and come back from State U having switched out of STEM because they are so underprepared.

This was my experience, though I realize now that an executive functioning deficit was also a factor, which kept me from overcoming through self-study. The same EF issue might have caused me to fail miserably in a more challenging school environment, though. Who knows?

[TeaCookiesBears]

It is also a bar that moves. An 8th grade education was fine 100 or possibly even 50 years ago. Now it would be neglectful.

Good point, but I am almost willing to bet yesterday's 8th grader of 100 years ago would be more prepared for college than many high schoolers of today at least from what I see in my area.

[Dmmetler]

I wonder if it is more the individual prof in those weed out classes than the school.  I did not go to an ivy league school as an undergrad (majored in biology, minored in chemistry), but those statistics are similar to what I saw in my undergrad biology experience.  I just assumed they were run-of-the-mill stats for bio/pre-med majors everywhere, but maybe not.

 

I wonder if part of that, though, is that kids who are into biology are often told that "You should be a doctor". I could see a decent number of kids who are actually more interested in other parts of science getting into a degree as a pre-med, and then dropping pre-med for something that is actually more interesting to them.

 

I base this, in large part, on the number of herpetologists/field biologists and grad students in those fields who comment that they felt "pushed" to medicine very strongly, both before college and during their undergrad years, when, at best, they got "Oh, you don't want to be a doctor, what about a veterinarian??", to the point that they felt guilty when, after their BS, they went to grad school, not medical school.

 

I also saw that in music at a state college. A TON of kids who would have loved to be performance majors (or, in some cases, really wanted something like designing/building instruments, or instrument repair, or even music PR or journalism) who heard "You should be a music teacher" so often that they started out in that major. A lot of them dropped the major and switched to something else, and in many cases, I could tell you at the first interview who probably would do so-because they were a lot more passionate about the idea of building instruments, or designing sound boards, or writing about music, or playing the instrument themselves than teaching it. I don't think it was so much that the first two years are hard, it's that the first two years showed them that this really wasn't what they wanted to do.

[SKL]

I was wondering about this from the perspective of the mom of an advanced kid.  What if I let my 7yo sit around and play with her dolls until her peers caught up with her academically?  Even if that took years?  Would that be educational neglect?  What if she never did anything but read whatever she wanted and watch TV, and that was enough for her to absorb all the academic knowledge her peers retain from school?  Would that be educational neglect?

[Farrar]

It is also a bar that moves. An 8th grade education was fine 100 or possibly even 50 years ago. Now it would be neglectful.

 

But would it be? I mean, a proper 8th grade education would take a child through beginning algebra, the ability to read at a pretty decent level, and the ability to write paragraphs and essays. I mean, is a child with an 8th grade education going to be successful? Not really... but neither is a child with only a high school diploma. Even kids who don't go to college need more qualifications these days to get anywhere. And I don't know that 8th grade skills are so massively different from 12th grade ones that they could be called neglect.

 

I totally agree that the bar moves though and what is needed moves. Would a child who had no experience of technology be neglected? What if the child was Amish, which is something that comes up in these conversations often.

 

Good point, but I am almost willing to bet yesterday's 8th grader of 100 years ago would be more prepared for college than many high schoolers of today at least from what I see in my area.

 

Yeah. I think there's a huge amount of time wasted on "21st century skills" which could be taught extremely quickly. Kids don't live in a vacuum. They can acquire those computer skills pretty fast most of the time without much focus on them. Getting a quality 8th grade education of a century ago along with just growing up in technology since you can't avoid it most places, would probably prepare a lot of kids just fine.