How do protect homeschooling children from educational neglect? Can we discuss with some parameters?

[Halcyon]

my sense is that parents who want to educate their kids well, will. And parent's who don't, won't. There are always ways to skirt requirements. Here in Fl, we homeschool under an umbrella school option that only requires attendance to be reported, but the reason we do is simply because I don't want to be interfered with at all. I know my kids are ahead of grade level, they test above grade level, so why not make my life easier with a legal, easy option? Now, I came from NY, where the requirements were stricter, and I had no problem complying with them. So basically what I'm saying is, "I'm one of the good ones, and I will do what's required legally but I know that I go above and beyond with my kids educationally." 

 

Are there parents who DON'T go above and beyond? Are there parents who are just looking to shield their kids from PS? Are their parents who (and yes, I know of them) just don't want to deal with getting up in the morning and getting their kids ready for PS so they are "homeschooling" them instead? Yep. Are there parents who think Johnny is a precious snowflake who hasn't expressed any interest in reading by age 11 and they're going to let him "develop at his own pace"? Yep. 

 

The problem as I see it? There are good parents who want the best for their kids, and there are bad parents who either don't want the best, or can't "see" that they are failing their kids. In the latter case (the bad parents) just having someone "check in" once every 6 months would do wonders. They could no longer hide their dysfunction, they could no longer pretend that endless Minecraft is "math, engineering, critical thinking and science" all rolled into one. The monitor could point out that no, they aren't meeting their children's needs.

 

And for the people (like the vast majority on this board) who go above and beyond for their children's education, it would be no skin off their nose. I am not talking about extremely invasive or punitive interference. I am talking about a friendly "hey, how are you guys doing" visit every 6 months. Now, whether the government can have a Homeschooling Helper who actually has some understanding of the effectiveness of a WIDE range of homeschooling styles is a big question. It would require the STATE to actually educate itself on homeschooling, rather than requiring homeschoolers to twist themselves into contortions to fit into a box that the STATE has devised. So that's probably not going to happen. It would mean the STATE has to acknowledge that "their way' (core curriculum, etc) may not be the ONLY way. And I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

[AimeeM]

 

 

And for the people (like the vast majority on this board) who go above and beyond for their children's education, it would be no skin off their nose. I am not talking about extremely invasive or punitive interference. I am talking about a friendly "hey, how are you guys doing" visit every 6 months. Now, whether the government can have a Homeschooling Helper who actually has some understanding of the effectiveness of a WIDE range of homeschooling styles is a big question. It would require the STATE to actually educate itself on homeschooling, rather than requiring homeschoolers to twist themselves into contortions to fit into a box that the STATE has devised. So that's probably not going to happen. It would mean the STATE has to acknowledge that "their way' (core curriculum, etc) may not be the ONLY way. And I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

Thing is, I wouldn't mind (very much) a "hey, how are you guys doing?" visit a couple times a year, or even a portfolio review. Here. Locally. Where homeschooling is so common that even the public school sector is pretty well versed in it, and generally supportive OF it as a form of education. 

 

... but, I know (many, many; not just a few) who live in areas where the atmosphere is downright hostile towards homeschoolers, public school officials actually tell lies to new homeschoolers (like, "you can't do that - you have to join a virtual school like K12"). While it may be realistic (although far-fetched) to think that we can EDUCATE the public school sector on homeschooling, it is unrealistic (imo) to think we can force any acceptance among that sector, when many (if not most) believe the only "real way" to learn is in a brick and mortar school setting - and I have heard that line, personally, in an on-line capacity, from the public school sector, even though I haven't heard it locally. So, I think you hit the nail on the head with your last couple of lines, and I do believe that is why it will never be a good idea to implement a system where the public school sector has any governing rights over homeschoolers, on a federal level.

[Mrs. Tharp]

I don't think there is any clear cut way to prevent educational neglect among hsers, or any neglect anywhere, for that matter, if people are determined to hide it.

 

I do think that registering as an hser and a required annual test would be helpful.

 

Otherwise, I think that people just have to be more willing to speak up when they see it.

 

I didn't see any cases of neglect when I was hsing full-time. I did, however, see kids with learning disabilities whose parents let problems go for  a lot ( years) longer than I would have. But that's not the same, I know, I know. We live in an affluent area and I was surprised that people were not being proactive and seeking out professional help sooner.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

 

And for the people (like the vast majority on this board) who go above and beyond for their children's education, it would be no skin off their nose. I am not talking about extremely invasive or punitive interference. I am talking about a friendly "hey, how are you guys doing" visit every 6 months. Now, whether the government can have a Homeschooling Helper who actually has some understanding of the effectiveness of a WIDE range of homeschooling styles is a big question. It would require the STATE to actually educate itself on homeschooling, rather than requiring homeschoolers to twist themselves into contortions to fit into a box that the STATE has devised. So that's probably not going to happen. It would mean the STATE has to acknowledge that "their way' (core curriculum, etc) may not be the ONLY way. And I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

 

I don't know.  I am probably not the best homeschooler around, but my kids are doing well; I live in a state that requires a portfolio review and I'm not afraid to show it (though I wouldn't want to be asked for perfectly organized records on a moment's notice!).   I still don't like the idea of having to welcome someone from the state into my home for a visit.   I'm not anti-government, paranoid, etc., but it just gives me an uneasy feeling to think of having to have a home visit from the state to check up on me. Maybe I see it as a "slippery slope" toward more government intervention in families.  I don't know.    But I think it would feel like skin off my nose, so to speak. 

 

[hillfarm]

I am nearing the end of my homeschooling journey, as my dd is now doing a full-time DE program for 11th and 12th grade and will then proceed on to 4 yr college.

 

Regarding this question, if you want to know what an acceptable level of education is, contact half a dozen employers in your dc's chosen field and find out what they require for new hires. This does not account for kids who change course midstream or those who will find themselves working in areas that do not currently exist, but it will reveal the basic requirements your dc is most likely to need. What type and level of education would make the child employable in their chosen careers, what would it take to make them able to successfully compete against other applicants?

 

It can be a real eye opener to be standing in the admissions office and find out that your dc cannot take any of the math classes he needs because he can't get a qualifying score on the math placement exam. Or needs to take several semesters of remedial English to place into the needed English classes. Or to be standing in the office of the local electrician's union and discover that they strongly recommend certain math or physics classes that you didn't require your ds to take so that the applicants can pass the basic certification exams. I know of homeschool families who have experienced all of these, and none would have considered themselves to have been neglecting their dc's education.

 

The future admissions officer or employer doesn't care whether Mom couldn't make Sally settle down and learn how to write a decent paragraph, they don't care whether the family had a rough year when there were several illnesses in the family. They don't care whether the parent educator was suffering from severe, clinical depression and didn't bother to teach most of the time, nor whether the family put more stock in "lifestyle skills" learning. They care whether Susie can achieve the minimum score on her placement exam or jump in and be able to demonstrate mastery of the basic skills needed to do the job she was hired to do. From what I have seen lately, if Tommy can't measure up, there are dozens of other kids who can who are competing with him for the opening. There re always stories of exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions, not the rule. Most of our dc will not be admitted or hired because they have some special snowflake trait that makes them worth accepting even though they are not qualified. Most will be told to go home and pass Algebra 2 (or whatever class/skill they are missing), then come back and try again.

 

I think that we have lost our way because we see education as an end, in and of itself, rather than a tool to reach a desired end. So we quibble over whether anyone should require Johnny or Jane take geometry or calculus, and argue who is qualified to judge their progress. We miss out on the fact that the future employer or academic institution has every right to determine what is required for employment or admission and will absolutely sit in judgment of our dc's grades, courses studied, quality of education, etc. I recently saw one sad case where the student was told to go back and do a couple of years of remedial courses. Of course this was terribly demoralizing and instead he got a minimum wage job in fast food service. I don't know if he will ever be able to rise above the circumstances, pick up that knowledge on his own, and start college several years later than his peers. There's nothing wrong with food service, if that is what a person wants to do, but it is so sad when they had such big dreams but were blocked by inadequate education from pursuing them.

 

Regarding the OP, I don't think additional legislation or government regulation is the answer. I do think that if we, as homeschoolers, want to avoid that, then we do need to cultivate a culture of diligence rather than neglect. It may not be the ultimate answer, but it will perhaps delay the changes. When someone laughs about taking a month off with the dc to deep clean their house as a "home economics" project, then we need to communicate our surprise and ask how they plan to make up the missed school work, not chuckle conspiratorially and share how we bent the rules and labeled babysitting younger siblings as studies in "child development". We need to share how we decided to administer a standardized test on our own (not at all state-mandated) to get an accurate snapshot of how our dc are progressing and to get a good overview of skills that need to be addressed. We need to help lift everyone up, not use our accomplishments to beat others down. We need to communicate, "Anna did really well in the county spelling bee last year. Would your dd like to come and participate with her this year?" instead of, "Anna did really well in the county spelling bee last year, too bad your little darling struggles so in that area. Some kids will just never get it and it's silly to keep beating your head against a brick wall."

 

We need to come alongside new homeschoolers and encourage them to set realistic expectations and help them find real solutions if they get stuck on something and their dc's education is not proceeding well. When critics complain, rather than circling the wagons and vilifying the critics or ignoring them, we need to listen to what they say and look for kernels of truth, then open a dialog within our communities regarding how to address the problems. A rather snarky acquaintance of mine complained how so many homeschoolers are so poor at public speaking, since they never address a crowd outside their own family. So our homeschool 4-H group moms decided it was a valid concern and we worked hard to remedy it. For several years, our dc dominated at all the county public speaking competitions and got a firm handle on that important skill that they had formerly lacked.

 

Regarding those who are truly neglecting their dc's education, I'm not sure what can be done. As so many others have said in this thread, if we turn them in, who do we really trust to make things better? Who is qualified to evaluate the claims of neglect? What "correction" is appropriate and enforceable? Other than seeing to our own households and encouraging our friends and acquaintances to also strive for educational appropriateness, if not excellence, I'm not sure whether anything else we can do would have the desired impact of stopping the neglect without initiating infringement upon the freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. No easy answers.

[Murphy101]

Now, if an organization like Clonlara (very friendly, obviously not opposed to homeschooling, and not opposed to unschooling either) would send someone to check up on us, I wouldn't mind at all. Could that be a solution? If governments could fund homeschoolers (which they do in some places), they could join a private school of that type at no cost, and that school could be trained to check for educational neglect. They could be a "mediator" between the state and homeschoolers, as it were. It would take the pressure off homeschoolers, because such an organization would be on their side.

No. Absolutely not. Mandating that the private sector act on behalf of the gov't to do the very things the gov't should not be allowed to do without a warrant is not an acceptable option to me. Because the defacto side they'd be on is the side with the hand that feeds them. *smh*

 

I have no desire or need to join any such organization.

[laundrycrisis]

Hillfarm, that was wonderful - refrigerator worthy.  Thank you. 

[Murphy101]

I understand that! I don't either! The topic is preventing educational neglect, though, and I think something like that could possibly help IF the issue is that the parent needs extra support and feedback.

But that's not really the topic.

 

The questions is not if a parent needs extra support and feedback. Many of us have at some point for various reasons and thus *we sought it out and accessed it.*

 

The problem of educational neglect in this topic is far more a case of people who need it, likely even know they need it by most other people's standards, and REFUSE to seek it or use it anyways.

[momto10blessings]

I would not like that either, but I kind of see the benefit. The officials would be able to observe the kids in their family environment, see the books and other educational resources they have, and... spot maggots :D. If this type of visit would help, I would be OK with it, theoretically. I say this knowing it will not actually happen to us, though.

No. Just NO!

[laundrycrisis]

No. Just NO!

 

ITA.  If home visits became mandatory, it would be time to leave. 

[Supertechmom]

I am nearing the end of my homeschooling journey, as my dd is now doing a full-time DE program for 11th and 12th grade and will then proceed on to 4 yr college.

 

Regarding this question, if you want to know what an acceptable level of education is, contact half a dozen employers in your dc's chosen field and find out what they require for new hires. This does not account for kids who change course midstream or those who will find themselves working in areas that do not currently exist, but it will reveal the basic requirements your dc is most likely to need. What type and level of education would make the child employable in their chosen careers, what would it take to make them able to successfully compete against other applicants?

 

It can be a real eye opener to be standing in the admissions office and find out that your dc cannot take any of the math classes he needs because he can't get a qualifying score on the math placement exam. Or needs to take several semesters of remedial English to place into the needed English classes. Or to be standing in the office of the local electrician's union and discover that they strongly recommend certain math or physics classes that you didn't require your ds to take so that the applicants can pass the basic certification exams. I know of homeschool families who have experienced all of these, and none would have considered themselves to have been neglecting their dc's education.

 

The future admissions officer or employer doesn't care whether Mom couldn't make Sally settle down and learn how to write a decent paragraph, they don't care whether the family had a rough year when there were several illnesses in the family. They don't care whether the parent educator was suffering from severe, clinical depression and didn't bother to teach most of the time, nor whether the family put more stock in "lifestyle skills" learning. They care whether Susie can achieve the minimum score on her placement exam or jump in and be able to demonstrate mastery of the basic skills needed to do the job she was hired to do. From what I have seen lately, if Tommy can't measure up, there are dozens of other kids who can who are competing with him for the opening. There re always stories of exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions, not the rule. Most of our dc will not be admitted or hired because they have some special snowflake trait that makes them worth accepting even though they are not qualified. Most will be told to go home and pass Algebra 2 (or whatever class/skill they are missing), then come back and try again.

 

I think that we have lost our way because we see education as an end, in and of itself, rather than a tool to reach a desired end. So we quibble over whether anyone should require Johnny or Jane take geometry or calculus, and argue who is qualified to judge their progress. We miss out on the fact that the future employer or academic institution has every right to determine what is required for employment or admission and will absolutely sit in judgment of our dc's grades, courses studied, quality of education, etc. I recently saw one sad case where the student was told to go back and do a couple of years of remedial courses. Of course this was terribly demoralizing and instead he got a minimum wage job in fast food service. I don't know if he will ever be able to rise above the circumstances, pick up that knowledge on his own, and start college several years later than his peers. There's nothing wrong with food service, if that is what a person wants to do, but it is so sad when they had such big dreams but were blocked by inadequate education from pursuing them.

 

Regarding the OP, I don't think additional legislation or government regulation is the answer. I do think that if we, as homeschoolers, want to avoid that, then we do need to cultivate a culture of diligence rather than neglect. It may not be the ultimate answer, but it will perhaps delay the changes. When someone laughs about taking a month off with the dc to deep clean their house as a "home economics" project, then we need to communicate our surprise and ask how they plan to make up the missed school work, not chuckle conspiratorially and share how we bent the rules and labeled babysitting younger siblings as studies in "child development". We need to share how we decided to administer a standardized test on our own (not at all state-mandated) to get an accurate snapshot of how our dc are progressing and to get a good overview of skills that need to be addressed. We need to help lift everyone up, not use our accomplishments to beat others down. We need to communicate, "Anna did really well in the county spelling bee last year. Would your dd like to come and participate with her this year?" instead of, "Anna did really well in the county spelling bee last year, too bad your little darling struggles so in that area. Some kids will just never get it and it's silly to keep beating your head against a brick wall."

 

We need to come alongside new homeschoolers and encourage them to set realistic expectations and help them find real solutions if they get stuck on something and their dc's education is not proceeding well. When critics complain, rather than circling the wagons and vilifying the critics or ignoring them, we need to listen to what they say and look for kernels of truth, then open a dialog within our communities regarding how to address the problems. A rather snarky acquaintance of mine complained how so many homeschoolers are so poor at public speaking, since they never address a crowd outside their own family. So our homeschool 4-H group moms decided it was a valid concern and we worked hard to remedy it. For several years, our dc dominated at all the county public speaking competitions and got a firm handle on that important skill that they had formerly lacked.

 

Regarding those who are truly neglecting their dc's education, I'm not sure what can be done. As so many others have said in this thread, if we turn them in, who do we really trust to make things better? Who is qualified to evaluate the claims of neglect? What "correction" is appropriate and enforceable? Other than seeing to our own households and encouraging our friends and acquaintances to also strive for educational appropriateness, if not excellence, I'm not sure whether anything else we can do would have the desired impact of stopping the neglect without initiating infringement upon the freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. No easy answers.

 

 

Period. AMEN   The whole thing needed to be posted again because liking it isn't enough. .

[PineFarmMom]

No. Just NO!

 

 

Absolutely agree!!  

[Murphy101]

The minute the term "sacrifice freedom" is used, it's pretty guaranteed I'll say an emphatic no.

 

The concept of giving up freedom to retain some semblance of a freedom or prevent its loss is also one I refuse to accept or endorse.

 

Bad parenting is always concerning, but it is also concerning to suggest:

 

That all the people should be suffer punitive measures because of a few.

 

Or that only a segment of the people actually suffer punitive measures when they break the law and the majority are protected.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

 

 

It would be veteran homeschoolers actually performing this service. They'd play a kind of mentor role. Someone like Tibbie would be welcome at my house, but if we clashed, I'd have to be able to request someone else - perhaps from a list with a short biography for each person. I could contact them whenever I felt the need, but if they saw we were doing alright, they'd just check in once in a blue moon, and leave us alone. If they were concerned about a kid not being able to read at 12 or maggots in the sink, they'd check in a bit more often, initially providing friendly help. They'd be able to get us access to no-strings-attached services like a cleaning lady to get rid of the maggots, but they'd also be able to warn someone higher up if nothing improved. 

 

This could work out hellishly, of course, but IF something like that would help some kids while not being too intrusive for the rest, I would not have a theoretical problem with it.

 

How nice to be mentioned this way! I would LOVE to come and visit you! Especially as I'm sure you have no maggots in your sink. LOL

[Murphy101]

If they were concerned about a kid not being able to read at 12 or maggots in the sink, they'd check in a bit more often, initially providing friendly help. They'd be able to get us access to no-strings-attached services like a cleaning lady to get rid of the maggots, but they'd also be able to warn someone higher up if nothing improved.

What do we want?!

A FREE CLEANING LADY!

When do we want it?!

RIGHT NOW!

 

It's probably not a good thing that my first thought was, "a few maggots might be worth it if I got a free cleaning service for it."

 

But... To be serious.

 

In your scenario:

 

They clash with someone = pick someone else. So I figure they'd eventually manage to find the person who never walked into the kitchen. This isn't all that uncommon in states that require more than mine.

 

Which by the way, why would they even notice the kitchen if they are there to discuss educational goals and progress? If they came into my house, that would mean never making it past the entry hall bc our school area is right off of it. The only thing you can see from that area is a sofa further down the hall in the living room.

 

And if they report that improvements weren't made to their satisfaction (presuming we give the authority to decide it and make such demands) to someone higher up, then what? It's hard to remove kids just for filthy living conditions. Because remove them to where? We don't have enough foster placements for the kids who are terribly abused as it is.

 

And yes, this is the states, not Europe, so a very different dynamic. Parenting our children as we see fit, is very much considered a basic right and that does include how the children are educated. In my state, the ability to home school is actually a protected right in our constitution. So you talking about just trying to recognise something as a right or freedom, and we are talking about the preserving of an already accepted right.

[TammyS]

I'm not American. In countries all around mine, homeschooling is set up with a lot of oversight from the very start. (And in others, like Germany, it's banned altogether.) Here, too, the need for oversight was a huge part of the discussion on legalizing homeschooling. And oversight works in quite a few countries. It may be a pain, but it does not necessarily take anyone's rights away.

 

This is a completely theoretical discussion in my mind. In theory, if someone not opposed to homeschooling coming to my house to see what we do with our time twice a year could save a kid somewhere from the burden of not being educated at all, I'd be happy with that. It would be veteran homeschoolers actually performing this service. They'd play a kind of mentor role. Someone like Tibbie would be welcome at my house, but if we clashed, I'd have to be able to request someone else - perhaps from a list with a short biography for each person. I could contact them whenever I felt the need, but if they saw we were doing alright, they'd just check in once in a blue moon, and leave us alone. If they were concerned about a kid not being able to read at 12 or maggots in the sink, they'd check in a bit more often, initially providing friendly help. They'd be able to get us access to no-strings-attached services like a cleaning lady to get rid of the maggots, but they'd also be able to warn someone higher up if nothing improved. 

 

This could work out hellishly, of course, but IF something like that would help some kids while not being too intrusive for the rest, I would not have a theoretical problem with it.

 

I've been thinking about this....about WHY this provokes such a "hell, no! get the guns!"  response in me.  I think it's the this...... if we have some sort of obligation as parents to have our children under the purview of the state, in one way or another (by public school, regulated homeschooling, or buying our way out via non-regulated private schooling), then we are all owned by the state.  Then freedom is an illusion and our lives are lived in gilded cages.  It's not right.  It's not ok.

 

 

[TammyS]

. The core of the question is whether it is possible to protect children of parents who do a really craptastic job while also protecting families who are doing fine on their own. Perhaps this is not possible. But perhaps it is. If it is, how?

 

It's not possible.  Here's how you know it's not possible:

 

Parents sometimes fail to fulfill their responsibilities.  Why?  Because they are people.

 

Governments, too, are made up of people, who sometimes fail to fulfill their responsibilities.  Because they are people.

 

So what you are talking about is two different groups of people.  What is the difference between these groups of people?

 

The parental group has going for it the inborn motivation that all creatures have to care for their young.  It's not perfect, but it's a lot more perfect than the group that has no inborn motivation at all, but rather operates from the external motivation to fulfill mission of it's agency and to ultimately perpetuate the existence of said agency.

[Murphy101]

No. It is not possible in the sense of policing families based on educational methods they choose.

 

It's a matter of social expectations being reinforced.n as tibby, myself and others have stated.

 

We live in a society where for all the talk of kids not being able to read when they graduate, we do still expect a 5th grader to be reading and most people are going to be concerned if they aren't, so most people work to avoid that stigma. Likewise for home cleanliness. There might be a wide range of acceptable, but most are going to agree that genuine filth is shame inducing. They won't invite anyone in or over. They will suggest help to someone they know is really struggling bc they find it unacceptable and don't want a family member or friend to be socially penalized in some way.

 

And sometimes the social expectations are not tied to an actual health concern.

 

For example. There's no evidence that maggots are inherently hazardous to health. They don't make you sick. In fact, you can eat them safely and they were traditional a major source of protein in native cultures all over the world.

 

Note: I am not endorsing leaving homes to be overrun by maggots, nor going to dine on them anytime soon. Because I find the ideas repugnant and repulsive and revolting, likely bc of my social conditioning, which in this case I'm quite content. ;)

[PineFarmMom]

Yes, you are right. I probably shouldn't even be part of this discussion anyway: I live outside the US, in a country where homeschooling only just became legal, and I'd personally go to great lengths to avoid government oversight of our homeschool. I don't believe any government official has anything meaningful to contribute to my kids' education, and I additionally believe it is highly likely that random bureaucrats would consider me neglectful SIMPLY for the fact that I homeschool. 

 

But... educational neglect can and does take place in a homeschooling context. This has little to do with us, people who take education seriously, and it is not our responsibility to stop it, nor can we stop it. The stories I sometimes hear (on homeschoolers anonymous, and on that other thread) are concerning though. I wish this would not happen.

 

I believe sacrificing some freedom so that we can all be sure every child gets an education would be worthwhile under certain conditions. That's not to say that this is actually possible. I was just brainstorming. Among other things, cases of educational neglect in homeschools can indeed impact our rights to homeschool. That alone is enough reason to think about these things.

 

 

I do get where you are coming from, and I think I might view it like that if I were in your shoes.  

 

From my view, here in the U.S.:

 

1.)  Once freedoms are taken, given up, stolen in secret, whatever, they are rarely regained and usually lead to the losing of more freedoms.  That is one slippery slope!!

2.)  I don't like the government involvement we already have to deal with because it is way more than it should be!!

3.)  I don't agree when conversations about concern for the children around us automatically turn to some way that the government needs to get involved.  It is like propping a very good ladder against the wrong building!!  My analogy is not great, but it was the best I had at the moment.  <edited to say: I do not think everyone is suggesting more government oversight or the giving away of freedoms (though those two are typically like peanut butter and jelly).>

[Reefgazer]

This was my very first thought also, LOL!

What do we want?!
A FREE CLEANING LADY!
When do we want it?!
RIGHT NOW!

It's probably not a good thing that my first thought was, "a few maggots might be worth it if I got a free cleaning service for it."

But... To be serious.

In your scenario:

They clash with someone = pick someone else. So I figure they'd eventually manage to find the person who never walked into the kitchen. This isn't all that uncommon in states that require more than mine.

Which by the way, why would they even notice the kitchen if they are there to discuss educational goals and progress? If they came into my house, that would mean never making it past the entry hall bc our school area is right off of it. The only thing you can see from that area is a sofa further down the hall in the living room.

And if they report that improvements weren't made to their satisfaction (presuming we give the authority to decide it and make such demands) to someone higher up, then what? It's hard to remove kids just for filthy living conditions. Because remove them to where? We don't have enough foster placements for the kids who are terribly abused as it is.

And yes, this is the states, not Europe, so a very different dynamic. Parenting our children as we see fit, is very much considered a basic right and that does include how the children are educated. In my state, the ability to home school is actually a protected right in our constitution. So you talking about just trying to recognise something as a right or freedom, and we are talking about the preserving of an already accepted right.

 

[Ausmumof3]

This was my very first thought also, LOL!

And mine... Bring on the maggots!

[swellmomma]

WHere I live we have to register with a homeschool board based on what form of homeschooler we want to be.  Meaning we can register as aligned also known as teacher directed which is essentially public school at home, doing the full provincial curriculum at home, we can register as traditional also known as parent directed, which means we can teach whatever we want, or we can register as blended which is a mixture of the 2 above kinds based on the subject.

That board then assigns us a facilitator.  We have to submit a program plan for each child and have it approved and then we are given funding from the gov't (those that are aligned get the most, those that are traditional get the least.  SO aligned get $1500 per child per year, traditional gets $821 per child per year).  It can only be spent on things that we can prove aid out program plan, or for things like educational testing, extracurrics if we put them on the program plan etc.

Twice a year we have a home visit if we are traditional, 3 times a year if aligned, blended it is up to the facilitator if it is 2 or 3.  The first one is at the start of the year when we outline our goals, the second at the end when we recap what we did, show if we met ur goals or explain why we didn't. The home visits give the facilitators to talk to kids on their own turf which mean sthe kids are more likely to share and open up, and it helps them see if the family is struggling and needs supports in some way.  We have been with out board for 5 years, so my facilitator has been with us that long.  He has been in my home twice a year for those 5 years and has a sense of how things generally are here, has seen how things have changed in our set up to meet the needs of the kids as they have grown etc.  The visit this past fall my house was a mess, not maggots and mold but a disaster.  He knew we have had some struggles recently, so midyear this year he sent me an email to check in etc.  Now if when he comes for his year end review it is still a disaster that would be a red flag that something was up, where as 1 time is not kwim.  He has seen all the other visits over 5 years it has been clean etc.  And I have never had much warning about when a visit is, like 1-3 days, when he calls to say he will be in the area (he travels the whole province visiting families), so if my home was a sty I would have no time to fix it really.  

We don't have to do standardized testing unless we are registered as aligned, High school transcripts and diploma are handled by the gov't, you can not get them unless you can show you met the provincial outcomes for each course, and in grade 12 written the diploma exams for the core subjects.  

So we are a fairly regulated province, and yet I know people who nonschool.  FOr example, I know one who says she unschools, and when the kids are young they do a lot, but she has a teen the same age as my son (their birthdays are 2 weeks apart), and yet even with all my son's LDs, mental illness and my heavy schedule that prevents us from doing full school days he is further ahead in high school than this boy.  THe boy has a job at McD's, and is a shift trainer(I think that is what she said it was when he got his promotion), if not at work she says he either is asleep, lounging on the couch or playing his guitar.  She is a radical unschool she says so no requirements.  SHe has put out on facebook that she hopes her kids never go to university, she wants all 4 to be entrepreneurs, which I suppose is fine since they will not have the pre-reqs to apply for university (our post secondary schools are hard to get into without the gov't approved transcript, only 2 will take homeschoolers based on portfolio and entrance exam, the rest need the approved courses).  TO me she is committing educational neglect and yet she passes the regulations every year.  I can't see how, but she does.  And she is registered (in the early years she registers blended for more funding but high school as traditional), and how she words her program plan and write up her eval at the end of the year  she is somehow passing the requirements.  And she is not the only one I know who is like that.  SO I am not convinced that more oversight is the answer, because we have lots and still there are those who just find a way to not educate anyway, and if it wasn't for the fact my kids have documented disabilities it would appear like I was negligent (even though there is progress every year) because they are multiple grade levels below average.  I do not know what the answer is, but I do not think more gov't regulation is it.

[Shelly in VA]

What do we want?!

A FREE CLEANING LADY!

When do we want it?!

RIGHT NOW!

 

 

Sign me up!!! :)

[Pod's mum]

Sometimes on a good road our speed limit seems lower than it needs to be.

Sometimes I might want another beer before I leave the neighbourhood Friday beer o'clock.

But the regulations I am willing to live by are restrictions for the greater good; meaning my greater good.

 

Why should a matter like education be less important than these for driving?

 

Our rights to home educate are regulated here with care and understanding.

As one from outside the US, sometimes the anti-regulation stance can seem extreme.

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

Sometimes on a good road our speed limit seems lower than it needs to be.

Sometimes I might want another beer before I leave the neighbourhood Friday beer o'clock.

But the regulations I am willing to live by are restrictions for the greater good; meaning my greater good.

 

Why should a matter like education be less important than these for driving?

 

Our rights to home educate are regulated here with care and understanding.

As one from outside the US, sometimes the anti-regulation stance can seem extreme.

We were talking about this last night over the gun laws. It's honestly something hard to understand from the outside looking in but I'm sure it makes sense from there.

[Tsuga]

We were talking about this last night over the gun laws. It's honestly something hard to understand from the outside looking in but I'm sure it makes sense from there.

 

Not really. Sometimes I see these people on the roads--with anti-gun-regulation bumper stickers--and I think, So, let's say I accidentally ended up on your lawn, say, I had been assaulted and was disoriented, you'd kill me? Really? You'd kill a person over a television? Where do those values come from?

 

I believe that guns should not be banned, and I strongly prefer wild-caught (i.e. hunted) meat, but not unlimited, unrestricted, and unregulated gun ownership.

 

The gun "culture" is scary to me. It doesn't make sense. It does NOT help that most of the people I see insisting on gun rights have confederate flags. I think confederacy was about states rights to enforce slavery and I'm not cool with that. Not at all. ("Allow slavery" doesn't make sense, because of course the slaves would leave if they could; slavery requires government enforcement to survive. Hence, the Civil War.)

 

So, on behalf of liberal Americans I would like to say, it does not make sense from here, not to all of us.

 

I'm not going to argue that point with other Americans because it's been argued to death. Just to say, while most Americans don't mind that their meat is killed with a gun, MANY of us don't get the "gun culture" as it is promoted by the NRA.

 

ETA--Oh, and we have plenty of vegetarians/vegans, too, and they are also Real Americans, no less American than someone who eats meat and owns guns just to prove a point. I'm sure my happiness at eating venison doesn't make sense to them, either. Big country, different cultures.

[Murphy101]

Sometimes on a good road our speed limit seems lower than it needs to be.

Sometimes I might want another beer before I leave the neighbourhood Friday beer o'clock.

But the regulations I am willing to live by are restrictions for the greater good; meaning my greater good.

 

Why should a matter like education be less important than these for driving?

Oh for... Good grief. Seriously? Why-

 

Because failing to keep your kid grade level in math is very unlikely to result in homicide, vehicular or otherwise.

 

Because none of those things are regulated, they are illegal. No one one is demanding to ocassionally drive with you just to get a feel for you in case you might be a speeder or drunk.

 

Because the laws for those things are all after the fact. Get drunk as you want. There's no law against it. If you drive, you run the risk of being caught then. No one believes your car should be monitored to be sure the average speed is in compliance with what is expected you should be driving.

 

So yes, something that is very dangerous and can kill thousands a year has criminal laws and no enforcing educational opinions is no where near as reasonable for gov't intrusions and repercussions.

 

But to use your example, they don't monitor and track all drivers even if a significant portion drive like dangerous morons.

 

Our rights to home educate are regulated here with care and understanding.

As one from outside the US, sometimes the anti-regulation stance can seem extreme.

From an American perspective, such utopic belief in the virtue of government beaucracy despite centuries of repeated historical lesson that it is unwise to presume it seems a blindly unreasonable expectation.

[Murphy101]

Not really. Sometimes I see these people on the roads--with anti-gun-regulation bumper stickers--and I think, So, let's say I accidentally ended up on your lawn, say, I had been assaulted and was disoriented, you'd kill me? Really? You'd kill a person over a television? Where do those values come from?

---------------------

 

The protection of what we have earned is rather basic to humans just about everywhere. I'd figure it started with hunters and gatherers protecting their food and belongings.

 

Not that it matters. If you trespass onto someone's property, especially into their home, I think it's rather unreasoned to expect the homeowner to engage in a conversation to deduce if you just want the TV or to rape and kill them, and being a thief doesn't incline to thinking they are telling the truth anyways.

 

I believe that guns should not be banned, and I strongly prefer wild-caught (i.e. hunted) meat, but not unlimited, unrestricted, and unregulated gun ownership.

Well good then bc it isn't in any state that I'm aware of.

[PineFarmMom]

From an American perspective, such utopic belief in the virtue of government beaucracy despite centuries of repeated historical lesson that it is unwise to presume it seems a blindly unreasonable expectation.

Yes, This!!! Thank you!!!!!

 

Homeschooling has led me to learn history. History has proven to me that far-reaching, too-involved-in-our-lives government (and we have one now) is not to be trusted!!

 

And 2nd Amendment Rights are very worthy of fighting for.

[Murphy101]

If you are strongly opposed to regulations and oversight:

 

- Do you not think educational neglect is an issue among homeschoolers, or do you just not think regulations can prevent or catch it?

I don't think it is an issue in the sense of being the norm or expected result. I don't think home schoolers should be targeted more than public schoolers. I don't think regulations can prevent it. If it could, it wouldn't be such a huge issue in public schools.

 

- What do you think could help instead? (That is what this thread is all about, after all.)

Many people have repeatedly answered this question. I guess you just don't like the answer. *shrug*

 

If you don't think anything could help prevent educational neglect in certain families, I think you're wrong.

I don't think anyone said nothing would work. Saying regulations for everyone won't work is not saying nothing will. Social expectations has far more influence than people think. Even among home schoolers who by their nature tend to self select people who are okay not running with the pack.

[Murphy101]

If someone is willing to give up freedom just so they can get ahead financially....

 

I think that's a pretty low value of freedom. People the world over do it every day and I get it bc I like my roof and dinner just as much as the next person.

 

But hey, this is a country started by risking their children's future over the price of tea tax.

[Reefgazer]

Best. post. ever.  It needs re-posting.

Oh for... Good grief. Seriously? Why-

Because failing to keep your kid grade level in math is very unlikely to result in homicide, vehicular or otherwise.

Because none of those things are regulated, they are illegal. No one one is demanding to ocassionally drive with you just to get a feel for you in case you might be a speeder or drunk.

Because the laws for those things are all after the fact. Get drunk as you want. There's no law against it. If you drive, you run the risk of being caught then. No one believes your car should be monitored to be sure the average speed is in compliance with what is expected you should be driving.

So yes, something that is very dangerous and can kill thousands a year has criminal laws and no enforcing educational opinions is no where near as reasonable for gov't intrusions and repercussions.

But to use your example, they don't monitor and track all drivers even if a significant portion drive like dangerous morons.


From an American perspective, such utopic belief in the virtue of government beaucracy despite centuries of repeated historical lesson that it is unwise to presume it seems a blindly unreasonable expectation.

 

[Reefgazer]

I do think there is educational neglect among a minority of homeschoolers.

 

I don't think regulations can catch it, unless those regulations were so intrusive as to impinge on basic freedoms (such as violating the privacy of the home).  NY is one of the most highly regulated states when it comes to homeschooling, but if you want to circumvent the state laws and truly not educate your kids, it's not difficult to do under current laws.  You could make highly-intrusive laws for those minority of families who neglect their kids educationally, but it likely wouldn't pass a constitutional challenge.  Not to mention, making laws based on exceptions is poor policy.

 

I think what would be most effective is the same thing that made anti-DWI and anti-smoking standard:  public shame.  When I was in college, DWI was something to laugh about, people still smoked in public places/cars/bars and restaurants.  But within a generation, that attitude is completely gone.  Yes, people still smoke, but the numbers of people who smoke has plummeted and it is no longer a socially-acceptable activity.  So...it's up to homeschoolers to make educational neglect a socially-unacceptable activity through shaming.

 

If you are strongly opposed to regulations and oversight:

 

- Do you not think educational neglect is an issue among homeschoolers, or do you just not think regulations can prevent or catch it?

- What do you think could help instead? (That is what this thread is all about, after all.) 

 

If you don't think anything could help prevent educational neglect in certain families, I think you're wrong. While some people will indeed go to extreme lengths to avoid oversight, I am entirely convinced others would work to show progress in their children, more so than they would otherwise. I was not even suggesting that oversight is the answer, and as someone not from the US I am most certainly not advocating any type of law change there. I was, as I said, just brainstorming, and I was honestly surprised at the "hell no" reactions from people. 

 

I do think that educational neglect is a problem. I don't think children not being educated is acceptable, whether they are not being educated within the school system or at home. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer (certainly not for everyone, but I think there is for some), but I do think this is a topic that deserves to be thought about.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

If you are strongly opposed to regulations and oversight:

 

- Do you not think educational neglect is an issue among homeschoolers, or do you just not think regulations can prevent or catch it?

- What do you think could help instead? (That is what this thread is all about, after all.) 

 

If you don't think anything could help prevent educational neglect in certain families, I think you're wrong. While some people will indeed go to extreme lengths to avoid oversight, I am entirely convinced others would work to show progress in their children, more so than they would otherwise. I was not even suggesting that oversight is the answer, and as someone not from the US I am most certainly not advocating any type of law change there. I was, as I said, just brainstorming, and I was honestly surprised at the "hell no" reactions from people. 

 

I do think that educational neglect is a problem. I don't think children not being educated is acceptable, whether they are not being educated within the school system or at home. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer (certainly not for everyone, but I think there is for some), but I do think this is a topic that deserves to be thought about.

 

I'm not opposed to all regulation and oversight of homeschoolers.  I would want to see fair and meaningful oversight and not with the approach that homeschoolers are some evil strange bunch who just want to screw their kids up.  I don't believe that educational neglect is rampant among homeschoolers.  I have no reason to believe that. 

 

I'm curious as to why you feel this is a major problem. 

[Murphy101]

Some good suggestions were given here, and I do agree that it will not be possible to catch all cases of educational neglect no matter what measures are put in place. It's also possible that government oversight does not have the potential to solve anything. BUT this is a theoretical discussion and I don't understand why just thinking about what government regulation might do to prevent educational neglect in a homeschool context provokes such strong reactions.

Ideas have meaning and power, this isn't that new or unique a concept. You are just as provoked by the mere discussion of various scenarios that could be considered possible educational neglect by how strongly you react to them.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't necessarily feel this is a major problem.

 

About a year ago, I stumbled on the stories of adults who had been homeschooled and who felt they were educationally neglected. I had very mixed feelings about these stories. To start with, I think it's not acceptable for any "homeschooling" parent to purposely withhold an education from their kids, because - for instance - they are girls. I don't think it is acceptable for children not to be learning at all (as potentially happened in that "no school in two years" thread), whether it's for ideological reasons or because the parent prefers to be on Facebook. (Note: I have zero problems with unschooling where learning does happen and we have unschooling tendencies ourselves.) I assume everyone agrees that not educating is unacceptable.

 

On the other hand, I did feel like a group of these people (the coalition for responsible homeschooling, I think) lumped all homeschoolers in together. They persistently referred to pretty fundamentalist religious homeschoolers of a certain brand as "homeschool parents" without any qualifiers. This may give non-homeschoolers the impression that we're all like that, which is just not true. 

 

Anyway, these stories were horrifying and deeply concerning to me. I'd like very much not to see this kind of thing happening to anyone else. I have no idea how often this actually happens, and it could well be a really rare occurrence, but these people did feel like it happened more often than most of us like to think, and I think their voices deserve to be considered. 

 

Some good suggestions were given here, and I do agree that it will not be possible to catch all cases of educational neglect no matter what measures are put in place. It's also possible that government oversight does not have the potential to solve anything. BUT this is a theoretical discussion and I don't understand why just thinking about what government regulation might do to prevent educational neglect in a homeschool context provokes such strong reactions. 

 

I recall those stories.  That was pretty upsetting. 

 

 

[EmseB]

I recall those stories.  That was pretty upsetting. 

 

 

 

If we're all talking about the same thing, I think many of those stories had to do with a religious upbringing and what parents considered a good education vs. what kids found to be a good education later on in life.  And honestly, as terrible as the stories sound, I don't think there's a way to regulate this.

 

Many people on the outside looking in (particularly educationists) would see the way I'm educating my kids as misguided, if not downright wrong.  Some things are minor (my DS5 would under no circumstances in traditional school be allowed to loudly hum the theme song to Animaniacs while doing his math worksheet.  It helps him concentrate and learn his math and I don't see a problem with it), and some things are major (we are fully indoctrinating our kids in our religious faith instead of choosing a secular education).  But we can't regulate those sorts of things out of homeschools.  Unschooling wouldn't exist, nature study would be viewed as a waste of valuable instruction time, my kid must be reading by six, etc, etc.

 

I don't know the answer to this problem, but people homeschool largely to get out of a one-size-fits-all approach.  Testing can be a minimal regulation, but even those standards promote the idea that there is a definite level that my kid should be attaining during a certain age.  And if he's not, does that mean I'm not educating him?  Does a low test score warrant a home visit?  Does that happen in public schools?

 

Education can be well defined, but it's also very nebulous and that's why many of us homeschool.  Maybe my kids will hate the education they got when they are older.  Maybe they will say that I didn't really prepare them, or give them the skills they needed to get by in the world.  Maybe they will regret not going to a public school like everyone else.  I don't know. If they come out with a  horror story later, I will feel awful, but I don't think it necessarily means that I'm not doing what I think is best for them right now.

[Murphy101]

Even when everyone agrees something is not acceptable, it does not follow that everyone thinks "something should be done" about that possible scenario.

 

For example, I think every child deserves to feel loved by their parents. I think it is unacceptable when they don't.

 

But no, I'm not okay with the gov't regulating how that should look and measuring whether parents are loving at least to some minimum standard.

 

I think every child should have parents who see to their health. I think it is unacceptable when they don't.

 

But no, I'm not okay with the gov't regulating that every parent be monitored and mandated to do so.

 

I think every child should spend lots of time outside just playing or going for walks. I think it is unacceptable when so many children go long periods never doing that.

 

But no, I don't think the gov't should regulate that parents do it or how they do it.

 

I actually think those three things are more vital to a child's well being than academics. So the chances of my being okay with regulating home schooling when I am not okay with regulating those things is highly unlikely.

[Murphy101]

The burden to do the right thing ALWAYS falls to individuals and individual groups, and so it should.

 

If my neighbor is hungry and I have plenty of food. My duty is not to inform the authorities. My duty, my burden, is to feed my neighbor.

 

Something that is for the common good should not usually need to be regulated. That makes no sense.

 

I think we are all in agreement that starvation is awful. There are real people who are starving, not just hungry, but starving to death right this minute. Even in first world countries.

I think we are all in agreement that eating is beneficial to people and everyone should have food and eat it.

But no, I would not support regulation to monitor our food intake and assess whether we eat or eat enough.

 

You keep saying how regulations would be helpful but have failed to demonstrate it in any manner wrt the issue of education neglect in home schooling.

 

Insisting on doing something proven again and again that it doesn't work and yet expecting not only a different result but that others should see it as okay and logical seems the very definition of insanity to me. *confusing*

[idnib]

Why should a matter like education be less important than these for driving?

 

Because you can't remediate death?  :(

[TammyS]

 Ideally, in my mind, the state should be the organized body of the people, not some alien entity that stands above or apart from the people. 

 

I think this is where you are getting hung up with what others are saying.  The state is ALWAYS above the people.  ALWAYS.  The state has the power to enforce what it does not like, literally, at gunpoint.  They can take your money, your home, and even your kids.  And that would all be ok, if the state were somehow perfectable, but it is not, because it is made up of imperfect people.

 

Nothing on this planet has ever killed as many people as the state trying to be the perfect organized body of the people. 

 

[TammyS]

 It does seem to work in Australia on the whole, doesn't it?

 

How do you define "work"? If I remember correctly in Australia they have to submit to home visits?  That's treating everyone like they are already under suspicion.  That's not working, that's investigating.

 

And how do we know that it's preventing anything?

 

Cuz let me tell you what happens in places with regulations that people find intrusive.....they simply stop submitting to them.  I know a number of people, who I will never out, that do a good job of homeschooling, but do not file with the state because they believe the state has no business in their children's upbringing and education.  Now, if they were doing a crap job of homeschooling, how would the regulation that they aren't submitting to stop them?  It wouldn't.  For that matter, I know people who do a crap job (IMO) of homeschooling who DO submit to regulation and it has stopped nothing. 

 

Again, I go back to, if we must submit our children to the state, even a little bit, then it is because they belong to the state....if they did not, the state would have no standing to be involved with the children, and if the children belong to the state, then so do the adults, because they were once children, too. 

 

Government regulation of education inevitably reduces us all to being wards of the state who don't even have the benefit of knowing it.

 

ETA: it may be that I just have an inner anarchist...I don't like the idea of having an SSN or a birth certificate (what does it mean to certify a birth, anyway? being that I'm alive, I'm pretty sure that I was born...though my mom had a c-sect, so maybe someone will disagree on a technicality).  Just today I got a call from the county health dept that our new well has been "certified" and they will need to come out to do a GPS coordinate.....this infuriates me beyond what is probably reasonable...but, to me, it's my well that I paid for on my property, which I also paid for (don't even get me started on renting land from the government via property taxes), and so it's none of the government's &(&()&(&()$$& business what the GPS coordinates of my well are.  

 

Freedom means to be free of the government.  Anything else is just privilege.

 

[IsabelC]

How do you define "work"? If I remember correctly in Australia they have to submit to home visits?  That's treating everyone like they are already under suspicion.  That's not working, that's investigating.

Like in the US, Australia's laws differ from state to state (so I only have detailed knowledge of the laws in Tasmania where I live). We have 'monitoring visits' which are usually in the home, although if I prefer I am entitled to request a meeting at an alternative venue. I do not feel 'under suspicion': in fact, as I alluded to in a previous post, I like our system and I am more than happy to have a friendly chat about what we do with the official who visits us (I have known her for 7 years and never felt that she has been anything but respectful and fully supportive of my home schooling endeavors). Sorry but I rather resent you declaring that my personal experience is 'not working'.

 

And how do we know that it's preventing anything?

 

Cuz let me tell you what happens in places with regulations that people find intrusive.....they simply stop submitting to them.  I know a number of people, who I will never out, that do a good job of homeschooling, but do not file with the state because they believe the state has no business in their children's upbringing and education.  Now, if they were doing a crap job of homeschooling, how would the regulation that they aren't submitting to stop them?  It wouldn't.  For that matter, I know people who do a crap job (IMO) of homeschooling who DO submit to regulation and it has stopped nothing. 

Here, I agree with your point, to an extent. Again to use the Australian context as an example, the states of New South Wales and Queensland have the strictest requirements, and as you predict, high rates of 'under the radar' home schooling and unschooling. I do not advocate complex or strict registration requirements, but more just because they are a PITA for families, not because of unregistered home schoolers. It would be a relatively simple thing, given sufficiently political will, to data-match birth registrations with school enrollments, identifying all children who have turned 6 and aren't enrolled for either school, distance ed or home ed. Minimal monitoring, it's true, won't stop somebody who is determined to neglect or abuse their children, but if done well, it does give the parent who is struggling a good opportunity to access support and information (and most 'bad' home ed parents are having problems, as opposed to purposefully setting out to neglect their kids). Because in my state the home ed authority is independent from the Education Department, it's in their interest to have as many registered home edders as possible, hence they do everything they can to help us with - rather than hinder us from - home educating.

 

 

Again, I go back to, if we must submit our children to the state, even a little bit, then it is because they belong to the state....if they did not, the state would have no standing to be involved with the children, and if the children belong to the state, then so do the adults, because they were once children, too. 

 

Government regulation of education inevitably reduces us all to being wards of the state who don't even have the benefit of knowing it.

 

ETA: it may be that I just have an inner anarchist...I don't like the idea of having an SSN or a birth certificate (what does it mean to certify a birth, anyway? being that I'm alive, I'm pretty sure that I was born...though my mom had a c-sect, so maybe someone will disagree on a technicality).  Just today I got a call from the county health dept that our new well has been "certified" and they will need to come out to do a GPS coordinate.....this infuriates me beyond what is probably reasonable...but, to me, it's my well that I paid for on my property, which I also paid for (don't even get me started on renting land from the government via property taxes), and so it's none of the government's &(&()&(&()$$& business what the GPS coordinates of my well are.  

 

Freedom means to be free of the government.  Anything else is just privilege.

That is an interesting philosophical question, and you may well be right. :)

On a practical level, however, I am no anarchist. I am happy to accept my government financial benefits, free ambulance and medical care, free use of the roads, the libraries, assistance from the police, and all the hundreds of other things the government provides. I honestly don't mind having a cuppa and showing the home ed monitoring person what the kids have been up to once every year or two. If I were free of the government, I'd most likely be a dead free person!

 

[Ausmumof3]

Children do not belong to the state but do they belong to their parents?

 

It's not about the States rights or the parents rights but the child's right to receive an education.

 

An education is provided by the state. Parents who choose not to use it and also refuse to educate their kids or in some way facilitate education are denying their children something that is generally considered a basic right.

 

I don't think the gov should tell you how to educate your kids but I think there should be a consequence for preventing your kids from accessing any if the forms of education that are readily available to everyone.

[Rosie_0801]

I have a little issue at the moment where it would be handy to be able to subpoena a homeschool inspector's files, so I'm kind of looking at this the other way. Instead of the power to hurt us, it could be the power to protect us.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I have a little issue at the moment where it would be handy to be able to subpoena a homeschool inspector's files, so I'm kind of looking at this the other way. Instead of the power to hurt us, it could be the power to protect us.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not an HSLDA member nor am I a fan.)

 

Years ago, I read an HSLDA publication in which they argued that the state of Virginia has the best homeschooling laws; not because their restrictions are the least (which is how hs'ers often judge the good or bad of state hs legislation) but because they are fair and thorough.

 

And what you say here is the reason they gave -- when homeschoolers do follow VA's regulations, which are comprehensive but not too restrictive, they possess a built-in layer of protection and proof in case anyone doubts the validity of the homeschool.

[IsabelC]

I have a little issue at the moment where it would be handy to be able to subpoena a homeschool inspector's files, so I'm kind of looking at this the other way. Instead of the power to hurt us, it could be the power to protect us.

 

Can you not do that? I can request a copy of anything they have on file for us.

Sorry you have to deal with the Issue.

[Pegs]

I don't believe they keep very much on file here in NSW, despite the fairly thorough planning and documentation we prepare in order to demonstrate our competencies to the authorised persons.

 

Do they have anything at all in Victoria? Apart from your registration form?

[Rosie_0801]

Do they have anything at all in Victoria? Apart from your registration form?

 

No.

[Pam in CT]

reefgazer, your parallel to drunk driving and smoking is interesting...

...

 

I think what would be most effective is the same thing that made anti-DWI and anti-smoking standard:  public shame.  When I was in college, DWI was something to laugh about, people still smoked in public places/cars/bars and restaurants.  But within a generation, that attitude is completely gone.  Yes, people still smoke, but the numbers of people who smoke has plummeted and it is no longer a socially-acceptable activity.  So...it's up to homeschoolers to make educational neglect a socially-unacceptable activity through shaming.

 

I remember those days too, when DUI was laughed about, and workplace conference rooms were clogged with second-hand smoke... and I agree, there has been a real shift in cultural attitudes in both these areas.  

 

I see that change in slightly more complex terms, though... regulations and legislation limiting DUI and smoking in public spaces went into effect, as well as changes in social attitude about their acceptability.. and while it's tricky sorting out which came first, I see a sort of "tipping point" phenomenon, in which the idea that the rights of smokers had to be balanced against the rights of others who did not want to ingest second hand smoke... or the rights of other drivers to be safe from -- as Martha pointed out -- drunken killers sharing their road ...  and that conversation, about the rights of one group extending only as far as the rights of the other, eventually sorted out to a different socially-acceptable norm.  

 

When I was a kid (in the US), the idea that non-smokers had a "right" to be free from second smoke simply did not exist.  The conversation that drunk drivers imposed a risk on other people did not take place.  Norms have expanded to include these rights.

 

 

 

The parallel in the US today is that the discussion about homeschooling is principally framed in terms of parental v. government rights.  There does seem to be a cultural divide, which may in part be about trust in government solutions generally, but I think also reflects differences in how the "rights" of another segment of the population are understood.

 

Children do not belong to the state but do they belong to their parents?

It's not about the States rights or the parents rights but the child's right to receive an education.

....

 

Children's "rights," separate from their parents', are difficult even to assess for all kinds of reasons, including their inability to organize and advocate and mobilize to change the culture, like eg MADD did here... and how they can be protected (from, say, physical or sexual abuse) is also terribly difficult in practice... but the difficulty in managing an effective enforcement program is separate from the question "do children *have* the right to ___________."  

 

Beyond the right not to be egregiously abused, we are in the US culturally pretty reluctant to go there.  (And it's exacerbated by having 50 different regimes for 50 different states.)