|
Post by nikita on Jun 4, 2010 20:41:53 GMT -5
Because they are at home. In their own homes. The only people with a criminal record who are not permitted to have children in their homes are those who are registered sex offenders or who have had their children removed by the courts. It is not a blanket prohibition based on simply having done a crime in your past. If you want to make criminal background checks part of the permit process for being able to educate your own child then why not do so when you try to take your newborn home from the hospital? Heck, why not simply require sterilization prior to release from prison? You can see the problem. People have a right to raise their own kids even if they have had problems in their past. That is a much different thing than a parent, when choosing to leave their child with a stranger, having a right to a full disclosure of that person's background.
There is a certain level of trust a society must have in its own citizens that they are going to do the right thing. We cannot base our legal and social structures on the premise that all people are bad and cannot be trusted, that we have to watch them like a hawk. There is a balance to be walked here, and its going to tip more one way than the other depending on your experience and philosophy I suppose.
This is all academic, though. School districts do not have the money to enact these kinds of oversight functions suggested here, nor do the counties or states. School districts all over the US are being forced to cut teacher positions and reduce the number of school days in order to simply educate the children already enrolled in their classes. Money is a huge problem. Whatever oversight they currently have of home schooled children is not likely to increase unless there is some horrible newsworthy tragedy that would focus its attention there. And so far nothing of that kind has happened. And frankly I doubt it would.
Individual parents may be abusive, and it is a terrible thing. That is why there are so many mandatory reporters under today's laws. That is relatively new - as recently as the seventies that was not the case. But a parent who wants to isolate their child for abuse is going to do it regardless of whatever laws are in place. There is a big television campaign in Oregon right now about reporting child abuse and it is directed at the community. They point out that children need a voice to speak up for them and it isn't always the official people who see the abuse. Sometime it is you. They give scenarios of when it is time to speak up, like in a supermarket or a playground. I think the idea that someone else will notice and say something if something is wrong does more harm to children than one would think at first glance. It is human nature for a person who suspects abuse to think, 'Well, there are other people who are in a position to know, who would report it if it were true' and continue on their way. 'The teacher would see it', 'the doctor will report it', etc. Breaking through that assumption and bringing it out into the community at large goes further in increasing reporting than increasing the number of official people who are supposed to report or take action.
And those official people are often not doing their job. Children are beaten, neglected, starved, and killed in foster care under the 'regular supervision' of social services and medicare physicians often enough that isn't a shock when it occurs. There was a baby I know of in LA county that actually starved to death in foster care while receiving all of his well-baby visits on schedule and after he died you could go back and see the medical record of his starvation but the physician just ignored it to the bitter end. I wish I could say he lost his medical license but he practices there to this very day. Which is a whole 'nother problem I won't pursue here.
So official oversight is not the panacea that it might appear to be. And the parents who have something to hide are going to hide it. They have shown themselves to be very good at it.
And I do want to point out, as objectionable as I know this is to some, that people do have a right to raise their children in their own religion even if that religion is oppressive and unhappy as long as it is not physically harmful to them (such as refusing necessary medical care to a child for instance). There is no law guaranteeing a happy humanist childhood. Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims, and Fundamentalist Christians and Scientologists and pretty much everyone has a right to raise their children in their own faith with their own rules and values.
What I see sites like this doing is helping to inform adults in how such religious groups can harm them and their children, and to offer support and keys to resources for those who are trying to work their way out of them if they choose to do so. To offer testimonies and food for thought. We aren't trying to outlaw outrageous fundamentalist sects but shed light on the problems inherent in them and give what I would hope is an intelligent and enlightened warning. Like the coast guard: we warn folks there are rocks under the otherwise calm seas and if they run aground give them warm blankets and a place to try to figure out how they went wrong and how they can best recover from the experience. What I think we aren't doing is making laws that prevent people from going out in ships or dredging all the waters so no one ever hits a rock again.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 4, 2010 21:00:01 GMT -5
I said in my last post I considered homeschooling my pre-schooler but decided not to. One reason I considered doing so was because I thought it would be sooooo amazing to homeschool without religion. To be one of those super academic/experience families that does lots of music and art and visits museums and joins science clubs.. I wanted to be the homeschooler it was in my nature to be, not the fearful christian homeschooler I was years ago. But I realized my kid's education should not be about me. It wasn't about working out my own issues, having a re-do of my own mistakes, it should be all about the kid's needs. I think a lot of people make choices for their kids as a way of healing themselves.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Jun 4, 2010 21:00:15 GMT -5
But that's not why oversight is needed - it's because by homeschooling (and for the people who don't take their kids to doctors, avoiding the medical system) they are eliminating the oversight all the rest of us have. So, oversight is needed because ....oversight is needed? You aren't making a very good argument. Are you saying ALL parents everywhere on this planet should have a government official checking on them to make sure they are parenting/educating correctly? So you are saying that if CPS checked in on kids once a year or quarterly that we would be stopping abuse that happens in homeschool families? Once again I ask if you are saying a yearly visit is going to stop abuse?
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jun 4, 2010 21:38:52 GMT -5
I completely relate to this amanda. I was under so much deep stress going to school 7 hours a day.. not just the bullying when I was younger but the horror, the sheer horror of having to spend all that time with all those people. I remember it vividly, I always felt like the weight of all the years ahead of me before I could be free was crushing me. And the first day of summer break, when there were all those weeks before I had to return.. this is going to sound weird but I have never felt joy like that since. That was the most intensely joyful experience of my life. I guess similar to a prisoner finally being released. I was an introverted loner child and though I do think most of my teachers were perfectly good, I certainly learned from them if I was interested in the topic, I would have fared much better if I had just been left home for years with a library card. Yes, exactly Arietty. I had some good experiences and teachers in school too -- I must have, considering I went to school to be a teacher, LOL -- but yes, I would have done quite well left to my own devices with a library card. In fact, that's where I ended up before school was in the library. By hook or by crook, I found a way to escape the herds of kids milling around outside. And neither of my kids are like me in that respect -- thank goodness! Life is a bit easier when crowds don't drain you, considering how the world tends to work. They're both happy, social little guys. Of course, the younger one informed me he was a flying carrot the other day, so there is that...
|
|
|
Post by hmschlmomof3 on Jun 4, 2010 21:53:56 GMT -5
Nikita, your post (#100) expresses my feelings and opinions exactly. Thanks for taking the time to write it!
|
|
|
Post by hmschlmomof3 on Jun 4, 2010 22:22:17 GMT -5
Arietty, I don't write much online (lack of time) but at some point would also enjoy discussing how various options for homeschooling can meet children's educational, social, and spiritual needs. There are probably as many types of homeschoolers as there are families!
Chandra, apology accepted, and again I do feel for the pain you endured and wish you well in your journey towards healing. I wish that abusive parents did not use homeschooling as a means to hide their abuse, and that as a child you had gotten the protection you deserved.
Vyckie, thanks for a fantastic blog that allows so many different points of view to be expressed. It has been fascinating and thought-provoking to read the stories here, and all this has helped me balance and clarify my opinions about the whole QF homeschooling patriarchal system, especially as to how it is related to abuses of power within the family. I applaud your desire to help the women trapped in this system, and your sensitivity to those of us who abhor abuse but still value much of the good in the whole conservative Christian homeschool paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 4, 2010 22:44:01 GMT -5
No, I don't think it will prevent abuse. (Though I do believe, based on the experience of friends of mine who were abused, that it will stop some of the worst or at least most visible abuses - abusers who can't isolate their victims at the very least have to keep the marks under clothes.)
But it will catch some of it, and stop some of it from happening again in the future.
If I knew the magic system that would stop child abuse, I'd be a lot more famous than I am.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 4, 2010 22:50:46 GMT -5
And Nikita, we do put some limits on religious freedoms. Female Genital Mutilation is illegal in this country; so is polygamy. There are cases where the courts will take medical decisions away from parents who are using faith healers and endangering their children's lives. It's illegal to allow a mentally incompetent person to go into the forest alone for a spirit journey, and it's illegal to run a sweatlodge off reservation land without basic safety regulations in most states.
This isn't a black-and-white issue. Religious practice is protected up to the point where it runs up against really strong feeling in the public or directly harms a person who isn't legally competent to choose.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 4, 2010 23:05:34 GMT -5
True. But drawing the line is where the controversy comes in. And where constitutional rights buck up against each other one must tread carefully. Female genital mutilation is illegal and if it is discovered the perpetrators are prosecuted. But does that give the state the right to enter the homes of all Muslim children and do a yearly physical inspection to make sure no one had done it to them? Lift up your dresses, girls, we need to be sure you're okay. After all you're being raised by scary devout Muslim parents. One can't be too careful. Of course not.
Preventing child abuse is about two things really: educating people on how to raise their children, where we can impact that, and empowering people to raise an alarm when abuse is suspected or seen. The rest is responding to abuse that has already occurred and arresting and/or rehabilitating the perpetrators and getting proper assistance to the victims.
I don't want any child to suffer at the hands of another. I also don't want the state invading my home in the name of 'helping' me raise my kids without just cause to think I am doing something harmful to them.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 4, 2010 23:35:07 GMT -5
Exactly. Groups like the HSLDA are trying to draw the line at "no supervision, these are our children to do what we want with." Some people like Chandra are trying to draw it at "no homeschooling"
There has to be a middle path that offers some protection for the vulnerable without becoming like France.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 5, 2010 1:20:24 GMT -5
Exactly. Groups like the HSLDA are trying to draw the line at "no supervision, these are our children to do what we want with. And yet... It was the NEA--and not the HSLDA--that the Bush administration once put on its list of terrorist organizations. Oh, the irony. I've mentioned meeting the HSLDA people as a young child, I think. Michael Farris and Chris Klicka, for what it's worth, are kind of...frightfully intimidating people. In my last post, btw, I was typing away and trying to finish quickly in the five minutes before the library closed... I just looked back and realized it doesn't make sense. Heh... Sorry, I'll try to revise tomorrow. Or, hell, just be advised to skip that one.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Jun 5, 2010 6:33:23 GMT -5
No, I don't think it will prevent abuse. (Though I do believe, based on the experience of friends of mine who were abused, that it will stop some of the worst or at least most visible abuses - abusers who can't isolate their victims at the very least have to keep the marks under clothes.) What is the difference between the words "prevent" and "stop" in this context? "Oversight"(still not sure what you mean by that word either) won't "prevent" but it will "stop" abuse. And you do realize that there are 360 OTHER days in the year that the abuser will leave marks, right? Seriously? Where are you getting your child abuse statistics and information? But this conversation is not about "how to stop child abuse" in general. This conversation is about how people think *homeschoolers* should have to check in with the gov't to make sure they are not abusing their children.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 5, 2010 11:46:06 GMT -5
I like Florida's home school law. I didn't find it excessive at all. It gave me a good start. Knowing someone could ask to see my daily log and my portfolio with two weeks written notice was great motivation to be diligent and thorough.
I DO get that the parents most likely to hide (ignore the laws about reporting/registering their home school, avoid medical doctors, isolate in "like-minded" social networks only) are the ones that need watching the most.
But how?
My only suggestion is peer pressure within the home school community. I would gladly promote openness and accountability if I were still in home school leadership of any kind. It's the only righteous position.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Jun 5, 2010 16:42:52 GMT -5
That is why there are so many mandatory reporters under today's laws. And who are those mandatory reports*? -Social workers -Teachers and other school personnel -Physicians and other health-care workers -Mental health professionals -Childcare providers -Medical examiners or coroners -Law enforcement officers *Per childwelfare.gov How many of those professionals interact with homeschoolers on a regular basis (particularly when the parents have something to hide, like abuse)? While some states also make everyone mandatory reporters, there's no accountability for the general public, to force them to report suspected abuse. I've talked with a disturbingly high number of people who are neighbors and friends of abusive parents and abused children, who never reported the abuse because they "didn't want to get involved". While I don't think homeschooling should be banned, there's no denying that isolating children away from objective third parties who could spot abuse and report it is dangerous. If you go through the stories of children in the foster care system, the majority of the abuse was reported by either teachers or healthcare workers. If you have children who don't have teachers to keep an eye out for abuse, that's taking away a very important part of the current system we have to keep kids safe. If you have a homeschooling family who doesn't allow their children to be seen by medical professionals, it pretty much completely shuts out the chance for outside interference to protect the abused from their abusers.
|
|
|
Post by egalgirl on Jun 5, 2010 17:22:35 GMT -5
That is why there are so many mandatory reporters under today's laws. And who are those mandatory reports*? -Social workers -Teachers and other school personnel -Physicians and other health-care workers -Mental health professionals -Childcare providers -Medical examiners or coroners -Law enforcement officers *Per childwelfare.gov How many of those professionals interact with homeschoolers on a regular basis (particularly when the parents have something to hide, like abuse)? While some states also make everyone mandatory reporters, there's no accountability for the general public, to force them to report suspected abuse. I've talked with a disturbingly high number of people who are neighbors and friends of abusive parents and abused children, who never reported the abuse because they "didn't want to get involved". While I don't think homeschooling should be banned, there's no denying that isolating children away from objective third parties who could spot abuse and report it is dangerous. If you go through the stories of children in the foster care system, the majority of the abuse was reported by either teachers or healthcare workers. If you have children who don't have teachers to keep an eye out for abuse, that's taking away a very important part of the current system we have to keep kids safe. If you have a homeschooling family who doesn't allow their children to be seen by medical professionals, it pretty much completely shuts out the chance for outside interference to protect the abused from their abusers. One category of mandatory reporter missing: pastors. As a licensed pastor, I am required by law to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse, and I [and most pastors I know!] don't give a flying you-know-what who the kids' parents are or what kind of church politics/consequences are involved. The lives of kids are way too important to mess around with! Granted, I know that some of the real hard-core homeschoolers home-church...I'm not sure what could be done in those cases...
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Jun 5, 2010 17:34:10 GMT -5
How many of those professionals interact with homeschoolers on a regular basis (particularly when the parents have something to hide, like abuse)? And how often are you suggesting these objective third parties interact with isolated homeschooled children? Can you please sight statistical evidence? Do you have a website you can refer me to? Even circumstantial evidence would work for me right now. Do you have experience working with or at Social Services? But this is assuming that all this "oversight" (that no one will define for me) truly WOULD prevent/stop abuse. No one has taken the time to explain to me the how or why.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Jun 5, 2010 21:06:50 GMT -5
I don’t have an answer for that. I think that research would have to be done to see what’s the optimal setting and frequency for meetings with vulnerable children. Administration for Children and Families- www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/chapter2.htm#report"Child Maltreatment Report Sources: Professionals submitted more than one-half (57.7%) of the reports. The term professional indicates that the person encountered the alleged victim as part of the report source's occupation. State laws require most professionals to notify CPS agencies of suspected maltreatment. The categories of professionals include teachers, legal staff or police officers, social services staff, medical staff, mental health workers, child daycare workers, and foster care providers. The three largest percentages of 2007 reports were from professionals—teachers (17.0%), lawyers or police officers (16.3%), and social services staff (10.2%)."If a parent (or parents) are found to be abusive, the children can be removed from the home until the parent(s) complete counseling/parenting classes/whatever they need to learn a better way of parenting. It’s the same as anyone else who is abusive. While it doesn’t prevent the first abuse from happening, it can hopefully prevent future abuse. How do you suggest we prevent abuse in homeschooling families?
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 6, 2010 1:37:57 GMT -5
And who are those mandatory reports*? -Social workers -Teachers and other school personnel -Physicians and other health-care workers -Mental health professionals -Childcare providers -Medical examiners or coroners -Law enforcement officers *Per childwelfare.gov How many of those professionals interact with homeschoolers on a regular basis (particularly when the parents have something to hide, like abuse)? While some states also make everyone mandatory reporters, there's no accountability for the general public, to force them to report suspected abuse. I've talked with a disturbingly high number of people who are neighbors and friends of abusive parents and abused children, who never reported the abuse because they "didn't want to get involved". While I don't think homeschooling should be banned, there's no denying that isolating children away from objective third parties who could spot abuse and report it is dangerous. If you go through the stories of children in the foster care system, the majority of the abuse was reported by either teachers or healthcare workers. If you have children who don't have teachers to keep an eye out for abuse, that's taking away a very important part of the current system we have to keep kids safe. If you have a homeschooling family who doesn't allow their children to be seen by medical professionals, it pretty much completely shuts out the chance for outside interference to protect the abused from their abusers. One category of mandatory reporter missing: pastors. As a licensed pastor, I am required by law to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse, and I [and most pastors I know!] don't give a flying you-know-what who the kids' parents are or what kind of church politics/consequences are involved. The lives of kids are way too important to mess around with! Granted, I know that some of the real hard-core homeschoolers home-church...I'm not sure what could be done in those cases... Most of the homeschoolers who abuse their kids probably belong to churches that support that abuse, unless they home-church. There are plenty of churches and Christian groups that advocate blatantly physically abusive child-rearing practices, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Jun 6, 2010 9:14:28 GMT -5
I don’t have an answer for that. I think that research would have to be done to see what’s the optimal setting and frequency for meetings with vulnerable children. And what if, after this research they (whoever they are that have the money and time to chase shadows) determine that the problem of abuse in homeschool families is not large enough to start a far reaching program of oversight specifically for homeschoolers? How are you taking this statistic? Are teachers just more observant than lawyers? Do lawyers see less children than teachers? People do horrible things all the time. There was a man and wife who kept a child in their backyard for 18 years. Do we now make mandatory checks of everyone's backyard? There was a lady who kept her dead child's body in her trunk for a week. Do we now to mandatory weekly checks of everyone's trunk? No, because the incidence of those things is so small that passing new laws about these them would not change he outcome. Ya, I get that. What I don't get is HOW this oversight is going to identify the abuse in the first place. Ah, but the burden of proof is on you.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 6, 2010 9:19:36 GMT -5
I think we can logically infer, from the popularity of child-rearing advice such as Michael and Debi Pearl's (which explicitly prescribes serious physical and emotional abuse of children) in conservative homeschooling circles, that many children in those circles are being abused. Those children do not end up in care because they do not have access to mandatory reporters who would report that abuse.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Jun 6, 2010 10:05:19 GMT -5
That doesn't seem very logical to me. You are saying that because someone wrote a book that homeschoolers are abusive?
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 6, 2010 10:11:38 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that homeschoolers are LESS abusive than other parents?
That seems like an unfounded assertion, more than the assertion that some homschooling parents are abusive, ESPECIALLY since we have several cases of death by parental abuse where the parents are homeschoolers.
And about the inspection of THE HOME that was brought up - if I want to sell homemade goods, aside from a few exceptions written into law in some states, I have to have my kitchen meet commercial-kitchen safety standards, and have it inspected to get a license to sell food. If I have a home office and claim it on my taxes, the IRS can drop by to look at it. If I take in boarders, there's a lottery chance the local housing inspector will drop by to check the safety of my dwelling. When you take a publicly regulated function into your home, you open yourself up to inspection.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 6, 2010 10:21:24 GMT -5
To protect the public one is marketing a product or service to. No one inspects your private kitchen to make sure your own dinner on Tuesday evening meets federal food preparation safety standards. You're comparing apples to basketballs.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 6, 2010 11:38:56 GMT -5
To protect the public one is marketing a product or service to. No one inspects your private kitchen to make sure your own dinner on Tuesday evening meets federal food preparation safety standards. You're comparing apples to basketballs. not exactly-- having an educated citizenry is a *public* good, that's what all the truancy laws and public schools are *for* in the first place. I will say though... that are those things, boarders rooms, home kitchens, inspected every year like has been suggested for homeschooling? Or is it basically just a complaint based/some lottery based thing? If so, why should homeschooling be different, and more strict?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 6, 2010 12:12:20 GMT -5
I don't think I can say it any clearer than I have for days now. The blurring of the public and private spheres inherent in these arguments makes no practical sense whatsoever and it seems fruitless to argue the point any longer. Having a healthy populace is a public good; don't come into my home and make sure I'm eating my vegetables. Having strong families is a public good; don't send an official over to make sure we're 'strong' in whatever way.
Many of us have had too much interference of the church into our lives. We don't necessarily want the state peeking through our blinds either, just in case every once in a while someone might be doing something they shouldn't be doing.
Homeschooling isn't inherently abusive or ripe field for abuse, and certainly not more so than foster care homes or even the local school quite frankly. Educational standards need to be set and monitored through testing, yes. And the community should be paying attention to signs of abuse of its members, whether it's the neighbors, the grocer, the moms on the playground, fellow church members, as well as the police, the homeschool educational testing monitor we all seem to agree is needed, or the doctor -- it is whoever sees something amiss. To the degree that we all pay better attention to all of the children in our community, and don't walk by assuming 'someone official whose job it is will notice and do something, I don't want to get involved', all children will be safer. The responsibility belongs to all of us, not just those in an official capacity.
|
|