And this is exactly what people who home school do NOT want. Because the people who will naturally be in charge of such things are going to make the determination that the children are being taught properly based not on the children’s actual educational progress, but instead on whether the family meet their particular criteria for conformity with local social standards: religion, political belief, cultural practices, and so forth. In other words, they will use it to harass those who are different.
Far too often when you give a local bureaucrat power, they will use it inappropriately. The best way to avoid this is to avoid giving local bureaucrats power.
Yes, KellyM. I’d have to find it, but I recall that in Nevada where you must use a state-approved curriculum, religious curriculums are almost non-existant. For further proof, look at whichever moron it is in this thread who’s bemoaning parents actually teaching their religion as fact (shock!)
Just a question BiblioCat: what kind of training do you have as a preschool teacher? Who, beyond the administration of your school, inspects your curriculum? I’m asking seriously, because I don’t know anything about Maryland, but here in Texas the only requirement when I taught preschool was that I take a First Aid class, and the only one checking over my shoulder was the school administrator. (The only state inspections we had were for health code.) Of course, we weren’t accredited, but we were allowed to operate nonetheless.
Joe_Cool, yeah, it sucks for them more than it sucks for me, though. I agree about the warrant & a gun thing, but I have seen video of CPS physically ripping a baby from his mother without a warrant, and without any reason that I could see. I probaly don’t know the whole story, but it seems like they should at least claim to have a good reason. I wish I could say more on that, but I’m really not supposed to.
I have an acquaintance that keeps “threatening” to homeschool her kids, but her life is such a turmoil, that this is exactly what would happen. In fact, I’m pretty sure her desire to homeschool is based on her being too lazy to get up early to get her kids ready to get on the bus! However, here in MD, that wouldn’t hold for very long. You see, 2-3 times per year, we (parents) have to meet with a school board representative, and show her samples of the kids’ work from each required subject. She (the rep) then makes the determination as to whether what we showed her is indicative of the children receiving adequate instruction. People like this woman I know would never last through school-baord review, because the same laziness that keeps her from being a good homeschool candidate would keep her from doing what’s required to pass said review.
BTW, here in MD, it’s not required that the kids be able to pass tests, just the same as public school teachers are not required to get their students to pass tests. It’s only required that we instruct, just as public school teachers are required to instruct.
Of course it is. The real truth is that all children are being brainwashed. Question is who gets to control the curriculum. You are advocating government control of this because you think under such circumstances the curriculum will be one that you prefer.
“to prepare them for effective citizenship”? What in the world does this mean? I fail to see how indoctrinating all children to be communists or any other Right-thinking philosophy differs.
I’m not discussing how you came to be this way - we’re hijacking this thread as it is. This is just an explanation for my speculation as for the source of your proposal.
Forcing all children to be taught in a manner so as to undermine these beliefs.
I’m sorry to hear that you are bruised and scarred. I would suggest that it would still be a better idea - far more effective - to avoid excessive hyperbole (in particular, any hyperbole that is not clearly recognizable as such is excessive, IMHO). In dealing with anonymous people on message boards, we can only go by the written words in front of us. But - to each his own. Best of luck.
I will indeed take a look when I get a chance.
Zoe, I have failed to understand your post. Sorry.
Our school is accredited, and our Kindergarten program is on a par with the county programs. IOW, the curriculum is the same as the county’s program. My son just went through the Kindergarten program last year (he’s in 1st grade this year at public school) and he was fully prepared for 1st grade.
To be honest, I think just the Kindergarten program is checked out by whoever does the accrediting (the county or the state?). I don’t know, exactly.
It is a good program, and we have a huge waiting list every year, if that’s any indication.
I’m an assistant teacher, and I have a degree in English. Our Lead teachers must have a 4-year Early Childhood Education degree. That is our school’s policy.
I spent a couple of years in a public daycare in another state, and did home daycare here in Maryland (licensed), and have two kids of my own (on-the-job training ). I also have to be certified in First Aid and take 2 Continuing Ed. classes each year.
Nobody really answered my earlier question about whether homeschooling is associated with reclusive cults in the US. From Kirk’s statements, I get the impression this might be the case.
While it’s true that occasionally people here choose to home-school for bizarre philosophical or religious reasons, such people don’t generally seek the approval of the Education Department to do so - they simply don’t send their children to school (something which is extremely easy to do in Australia, as no-one checks up on every child turning six to verify that they are alive and enrolled in some school somewhere in Australia).
Can someone point me in the direction of resources which explain why home-schooling is such an issue in the US (I gather that at least part of the reason has to do with few people being geographically isolated from the state school system)?
reprise, most reclusive cults run their own schools, which all of the children of members of the cult attend. Homeschoolers are generally not members of reclusive cults, although many do hold fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Homeschooling is becoming an increasingly significant issue in the U.S. because American schools are increasingly poor in quality and, in many places, unsafe. The desire for religious separatism is one, but not the only or even the major, factor motivating homeschooling.
I’m a bit shocked that absolutely no one agrees with the OP.
I’d be wholeheartedly IN FAVOR OF states checking up on parents every few months. There’s nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Good and even fair parents should have absolutely nothing to worry about.
I’m surprised that people are so vehement to keep the “big, bad government” out of their homes that they refuse to recognize what a service this would provide to neglected children.
Yes, such a wonderful service for the neglected children. At the cost of abusing children who are not being neglected, but whose parents’ lifestyles offend the sensibilities of the local yahoos that run Child Protective Services. These children will be ripped away from their families and given away to parents who are deemed more “worthy”.
Those who trade freedom for security deserve (and will get) neither.
Amen to that! Government officials never abuse their power, right? After all, we elect them!
Just the other day, a nice man from the government came to put a video camera in my bathroom, to make sure I wasn’t using any controlled substances in there.
At first I was a little uneasy, but then he assured me I have nothing to worry about if I have nothing to hide, and I sure didn’t want him to think I had anything to hide. Plus, you know, if they did start abusing that power, I could always vote for his opponent in the next election. That’ll show them I mean business!
And home inspections are an even better idea, because it’s for the sake of the children. The children are our future!
Some parents don’t want their children taking the psychoactive drugs that the schools strongly encourage (if not actually require) many of them to take. While encouraging the kids to call the police on their parents for smoking a joint… And teaching the kids that while its ok to beat the crap out of anyone you don’t like (after all, the adults never seem to stop the bullies), their parents are evil people because they merely own a firearm…
I’m sure that if you were abused as a child, you’d think differently about the issue of “parental rights”. Not that I was abused or anything, I’m just saying.
And I love how you only argue the point in terms of the government abusing the power. So, let me get this straight- theoretically, you’re in favor, but practicality is the only issue? Somehow I doubt that.
NightRabbit, if I may be allowed to respond: In the first place, many kids who are abused/neglected are not helped by Social Services, even when SS is fully aware of the situation. They only remove the very worst cases, because there are simply not enough foster homes to place the children in. Then, when the kids are placed in foster care, the court systems get into the act, because the birth parents’ start fighting to get their kids back. I would say that mandatory inspections, the cases of “neglect” that would be uncovered would still go largely ignored, because the system simply has no room for more children. Then, of course, there’s the question of how much better off the kids are in foster care. I say it’s a coin toss. Some foster parents are wonderful, loving people, but in other cases, the kid in question is going from the fire to the frying pan. But let’s go to la-la land for a moment, and imagine that there are plenty of foster homes, and they are all loving, wonderful environments. Then the problem is: who decides what criteria would make a parent “fit”. Who gets to decide? Is it federal or does it vary from state to state? (In which case, the worst parents would be looking to move to the most lax states). If all these problems were solved, who would foot the bill? Not to mention that I see a HUGE potential for corruption here (Social worker: “you know, having that bag of dirty diapers in the house is a violation, but could be overlooked in light of. . .certain consideration” Investigated parent: "Um, how’s 25 bucks?).
All in all, I’d have to say that any benefits would be minor, and the problems huge. I think that by-and-large, in this country the worst cases of child abuse (the ones bad enough to remove the child) are discovered by the programs currently in place.
NightRabbit, I believe your intentions are very good, and I love my kids and all kids, and I was abused as a child, so I know whereof I speak. I simply disagree with you, and am heartened that so many others do, too.
Going way back to the OP, the whole issue everyone is up in arms against confuses me.
I’m not a parent (and maybe someone in the UK confirm this), but I am under the impression that, here at least, any new-born children are subject to Health Visitors reports. (at least for the first year - visits beyond this are only if requested, IIRC)
The Health Visitor gives the child a “Red Book” which is filled in as they go along with any issues or problems relating to the childs situation or health. The childs condition is checked: where they sleep, food /diet, general health (eyes, ears etc…) and if any issues or problems in development are found the child can be referred to a specialist.
My nephew at present is 3 & seeing a speech therapist to improve his vowel sounding, for example.
The Health Visitor merely offers advice, they are not there to condemn or judge. It is not a ‘root out abuse’ system of checks, but only there to proffer advise to parents.
This advice and support is, in the vast majority of cases, very welcome.
Maybe this is not the same as “mandatory inspections” as described in the OP, but I fail to see how anyone can take issue with the government offering new mothers such a service.
(Even if it is compulsory for the first year.)
norinew, thanks for the response. I can see the logistical problems, and I admit that with today’s government and accompanying fiscal problems it would be a hard change to implement.
But I also think that the idea of the personal home as somehow sacrosanct is a philosophy that we as a society need to move past. I’ve studied law, and I see time after time how reticent everyone is to become involved in private, domestic matters. People should be held just as accountable for actions in their own homes as actions anywhere else.
If it really is the truth that many of the worst SS cases are ignored, then why are people getting so crazed in speculating that their children are going to be taken away because of a “bag of dirty diapers” or a crucifix (or lack thereof) in the corner?
Despite the problems of paying/organizing a corps to do this, I can’t see a large problem (ideological or philosophical) with making sure that children are, at a bare minimum, healthy and physically cared for. Whatever happened to “it takes a village to raise a child?” Now it seems more like, “keep the village the hell away from my child.”
It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes two loving, caring parents.
Aro, if such a program was instituted in the US on a voluntary basis, I could see many parents taking advantage of it. But the idea that our homes should be free from unwanted government intrusion without a warrant is at the core of the American way of life. Additionally, I find something vaguely insulting about the concept that all new parents need the governement’s help whether they want it or not.
NightRabbit, my post this morning was made rapidly, and I missed the opportunity to make a very important point which may give you pause for consideration: in the case of my own abuse, random visits by social workers would not have even spotted the abuse. My mother was a psyco bitch, who often told us that we were all a mistake, she never wanted to have kids in the first place, and we were all useless. There was a man renting a room from my parents who sexually molested myself and two of my sisters, and my mother knew it was happening! However, she was very good at putting on a “happy face” for the world, and no social worker would have suspected what kind of mother she really was. As far as questioning the kids, we were so afraid of her that we would have lied through our teeth. So to catch this kind of abuse, there would have had to have been survellance cameras running in our home 24/7. And I am still not sure I would have been better off in foster care, if I had been put there.
NightRabbit, the idea that the home should be a public place is repugnant. I’ve never met anyone who professed that people should not feel entitled to privacy in their homes, who didn’t (on reflection) have something about their life that was not of any real concern to society or government that they would prefer not be known generally. Generally, these things are idiosyncratic behaviors of a personal nature that harm nobody, but would subject the individual to ridicule, abuse, or worse were they to be known to the public. The idea that people need a “private space” to retreat into from time to time is virtually universal.
Taking away the private space of parents, who are under more stress than non-parents, as far as I can tell, might actually increase abuse.
Also, it’s not just that the worst cases get ignored, but that many trivial cases are not. Social service workers are notorious for making arbitrary judgments (quite often, they go to the home to “inspect” knowing full well that they will be removing the child because they decided in advance to do so) and judgments not based on fact. The courts virtually always back social services, and social services generally make a point of not going after families (no matter how abusive) who have enough resources (either wealth or political) to make a stink. So, what ends up happening is the poor lose their kids so they can be given to rich parents who can’t have any (or want more than they have). (This may explain why in many places, social services is more likely to take a white child into custody than a black child.) The absolute secrecy that surrounds child welfare activities does not help: there is effectively no oversight of social services.
Our current system of child welfare assurance is a nightmare, riddled with incompetence, discriminatory practices, inadequate funding, and outright maliciousness. Increasing the power of these people is not in anyone’s legitimate interest.
Voluntary programs would be great. However, right now if you go to social services and say “I need help with my children” they will either (a) tell you to go away or (b) take your children. They almost never offer to help without first determining that you are scum.
). I also have to be certified in First Aid and take 2 Continuing Ed. classes each year.