MadMordigan

[b]Why exactly is this a bad thing? A dildo and condoms would seem like a very sensible way to teach 5th graders about safe sex. [b]

Who ever accused parents of being sensible when it came to discussing sex with their children?

2tadpoles

So, are you saying that teaching children about a six-day creation, etc., is hurting and/or hindering the children?

The fundies will say the same thing about what my children are being taught.

Omnivores will say that the children of vegans are being harmed.

Where does it stop?

2tadpoles

Personally, I don't think it should be the government's job to teach children about sex. Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary. I realize this isn't an ideal world, but I don't think my ten-year-old needs to know that much information yet. I would rather him learn about sex being a natural expression of love between two people before learning about it's dangers and how to "wrap his willy" beforehand. You may be of a different opinion.

The whole point is that with homeschooling, the parent gets to have a say in what their child learns. And that is an essential feature of liberty. IMO, mandated schooling by the government is unconstitutional. It is, as Thomas Jefferson said, "tyranny over the mind."

2tadpoles

It seems to me that the government views children as the property of their parents. If a child isn't fed or clothed, who gets in trouble? If a child takes a car and crashes it into the neighbor's living room, who is accountable? Who gets charged if a child is truant? Who is responsible for the care of the child from infancy until adulthood?

What standards would these be? Seriously, I'd like to know what sort of standards you have in mind.

As for interests and aspirations, how much time does a child have in school to devote to these things? Once the bell rings, it's over for the day. If the child happens to be lucky enough to not have several hours of homework that night, he or she may be able to invest some time into those interests..... or not.

So our children are the property of society?

I feel that society/government has the right to protect a child from physical or mental harm...to intervene when a child is not being cared for properly. I do not believe that society/government has the right to impose its values on families. The ideas are out there if people look; there is no need for forced schooling to accomplish this "idea spreading."

An inquisitive person doesn't need society to expose him or her to anything.... s/he will seek out new things on his or her own.

Children are inquisitive by nature. It is only when the curiosity within them is strangled that a problem occurs.

I really don't know how anyone would accomplish that, unless they kept the child chained up in their home with no source of media.

Do you think that the Amish live inappropriately? I mean, I know you don't agree on their religious beliefs, but do you think they are harming their families by living the way they do?

How did people manage in the past, when nearly everyone in the village lived the same sort of lifestyle, believed the same things, etc.?

Who gets to decide what's inappropriate? The majority? Isn't that why infidels are sort of persecuted.... because the majority think we're harmful?

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Frogsmoocher ]</p>

Starboy

I hope the door hits them in the ass on the way out.

Starboy

brighid

I think you have improperly categorized the rights and responsibility of parents as defined by our government/legal system and property rights. Children are not the property of parents, but they are the responsibility of parents and parents have a legal obligation to take care of these children. The state also has an interest in setting minimum standards that parents should meet for their children and if they fail to meet those standards the government currently has the obligation to hold those parents accountable. Children are generally unable to fend for themselves and children are not mentally capable of understanding the responsibilities and obligations of contracts and therefore they are unable to enter into them. I am not really sure where you are going with the aforementioned statements. Are you meaning to say that parents shouldn’t be responsible for feeding, clothing, and caring for their children into adulthood? Isn’t it the parents responsibility to ensure a child goes to school and isn’t a parent legally accountable for the actions of a minor in the commission of a crime such as you mentioned? Should a child be entirely responsible for these things?

I feel safe in saying that you would disagree that children shouldn’t be responsible for finding food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc. but that parents are responsible. How do you purpose society deal with parents that do not provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc. for those children? Does the government not have an interest, or an obligation to intervene when circumstances warrant it?

What solution do you purpose? Furthermore, what does that have to do with the benefits or detriments of homeschooling versus public or private schooling?

Brighid

Captain Pedantic

I don't have any children myself, so I only speak from my own experience of school. I went to a fairly large state school in Cornwall (England) and hated every minute of it. I used to beg my mother to have me taken out and educated at home. Frankly, I probably would have had as much of a social life being educated at home as I had at school. I was desparately lonely, frequently suicidal and often in trouble for being a "problem".

I am currently in the process of being formally diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, an autistic spectrum disorder. I am now twenty and wonder if this might not have been noticed much earlier had I had "one to one" tuition rather than being a nuisance in classes of thirty or so.

Yes, I've done well. Better than many people. But I could have achieved so much more had I been given the attention I needed.

I'm not saying all children must be given specialist education, but some children need it, and some do far better on it.

brighid

Frogsmoocher

This is a pretty harsh statement. I think it is presumptuous to state that strangers are by definition harmful to the development of a child, or to a child’s education, or that because parents choose public/private education that they are neglecting their children in the egregious manner you suggest. I can think of far more abusive and neglectful things parents can or might do then send them to public or private school systems. Your statement is inflammatory and prejudicial.

I realize that you, because of your particular circumstances have chosen home schooling because of the poor quality of education your children have received through the military school environment. The military school environment is not indicative of all public schools. Granted, there are some public school systems that are atrocious and that I would not want my child to attend. However, there are many fine and outstanding public school systems that turn out excellent students. Again it is fallacious to equate public school with being bad by definition and home schooling good by definition. Each case should be judged on an individual basis. Nor should we go about making sweeping statements about the fitness of a parent(s) because of the choice they have made about educating their children. Haven’t you stated that parents shouldn’t be forced to educate their children in a specific manner, and yet you seem to be denouncing all parents who use public and private education as being the most egregiously neglectful parents around and advocating that all children are better off being educated in their homes?

The argument can be made that parents aren’t always the best educators for their children. How many people here, who have suffered from myriad different abuses from their parent’s would say that their parents would have been the same quality of teacher as they were parent? Andrea Yates can be used as the poster child against home schooling.

I also don’t think one can argue that a parent, by definition has the best interests of a child in mind. Some do and some don’t. Some are constrained by circumstances beyond their control and do the best with what they have. Some don’t give a damn just as long as the child keeps quiet and out of their hair. Some would do anything and everything in their power to provide their children with the best opportunities this life has to offer, would spare no expense, and would spend endless hours helping their child grow into the best student/person that child can become. It is the last category of parents that will make good home school teachers, if they have the ability to do so either financially or otherwise. They are also the parents who are active in the education of their children who attend public and private schools.

I think for those children who already suffer from abuse and neglect at home that school is their only refuge. I do believe that some children who overly sheltered will and do become socially crippled, but that does not mean that children who are taught at home WILL become this way. Again and as I have stated many times before the value or detriment of a school situation should ONLY be judged on an individual basis.

I know many men and women (more so then not) that are fine teachers, who adore their students and who go above and beyond everyday to do their absolute best to stimulate the minds of children. I know the difference good teachers made in my life and I know the harm bad teachers have done as well. I think of maybe two that were “bad” teachers and I can think of 5 whose influence in my life at different times was pivotal to my development. I am forever grateful to those men and women.

I think each parent needs to decide what is best for their children according to their specific situation. I know, without a doubt that I could not provide the kind of education my son is receiving in his school at home. I could not, even though I tried with all my ability to address his reading problem. I think parents who are active in all aspects of their childrens lives tend to have good children, regardless if they are educated at home or outside of the home. My try to be very involved with my son's education. I would like to be more involved, but sometimes I cannot be. My son is doing well and loves his school. At schools end this past summer he said he didn't want school to end because he would miss his teachers. I would say, that at least in our circumstance that public school education has served our child very well.

I am not about to even address the Abraham Lincoln/George Washington strawman either.

As atheists we hate being categorized as being evil by our mere lack of belief. We hate being accused of harming and neglecting our children because we don’t force them to believe in one of the thousands of different versions of the Christian God. So why fall prey to becoming no better then our oppressors by making sweeping, inaccurate and prejudicial statements about men and women who don’t follow the same path in other areas?

Brighid

ohwilleke

The Amish are a pretty good example of how society draws the line. The Amish are not free to fully direct how their children are raised, and are also not free to ignore the laws of the community (for instance, their horse carts must still have reflective warning triangles on them, and they are not exempt from environmental regulations). The children are required to get what amounts to an 8th grade education, and also, in practice anyway, are given a chance to leave the community to be exposed to the world. The Amish are also not allowed to reject medical treatment for their children to nearly the extent that adults can.

The Amish on the fringe of what is and isn't acceptable. While it is subjective, there is plenty of room to distinguish between neglect and abuse, and mere diversity.

There are actually lots of ways that the law does not treat children as property. Parents cannot unilaterally settle lawsuits involving their children. They cannot resolve custody disputes in a divorce without asking a court for permission. Parents can not spend a child's money on themselves. Parents are limited in the way that they can discipline their children. Parents are not free to simply not give their children an education. Also, parents are often not legally responsible for what a child does.

Does this mean that children are the property of the community? No. It means that the community (often as expressed through the state) and parents and the child all share responsibility for that child.

2tadpoles

Um.... I don't have a solution because I never had a problem. Seems as though you're putting a lot of words in my mouth.

You said that children are not the property of their parents, and therefore parents do not have the right to raise their children as they see fit.

I was arguing that point, and that was all.

Sorry, but my children have never set foot in a military school. We have never lived on a base with DoD schools. The schools my son went to were regular public schools in civilian neighborhoods. My son was not receiving a "poor" education. He was receiving an education geared towards the average child, and he is well above average. He was also a normal, active little boy who couldn't care less about doing mind-numbing seatwork. Unchallenging material + wandering mind = waste of time. That is when we first started considering homeschooling. It was only after we moved to an area with bad schools that we took the leap.

My younger child has never been to school of any type. As of now, he has no interest in going.

You obviously still don't understand my problem with schools in general (public or private). Let me be frank; I don't think that young children's needs are served well by removing them from their families for 6-7 hours a day, five days a week, for nine months out of every year. I think schools rob people of family time together. I think learning has nothing to do with homework or grades. I think the whole notion of school, as we know it, sucks.

You have the freedom and the right to handle your child's education however you want, within the options available. So do the Christian fundies. Yet this thread began with comments that the Christian fundies are being neglectful by educating their children in a certain manner. So why is it bad when I say the same thing about a different group of people?

I must modify my stance a bit, anyhow. I don't think all children would be better off at home. Some people don't like being with their children very much.

You are also under the impression that home schooling is all about schooling. It isn't. It's a complete lifestyle. I see helping my children learn as an extension of parenting, and I'm reluctant to give that responsiblity to anyone else on a routine basis. Very little of what we do actually resembles "schooling" at all. I think schools are a very artificial environment that promote rote memorization and regurgitation. Learning has very little to do with busywork and grades.

Maybe some of you folks here are different. But in real life, I only know ONE person who has thoroughly checked out a school and it's staff before sending her kids..... and she's a teacher. She teaches at the same school her kids go to. Everyone else I know takes the kid to meet the teacher and find the classroom the week before school starts, and that's it. They don't ask about teaching methods or anything. When the kid has a problem learning, it's nearly always the kid who has to adjust, which is just plain wrong. If the kid can't adjust well, they get Ritalin.

Most of the people I know sent their kids off today for the first day of school. Did I hear, "Boy, I'm so glad my kids are off getting a good education"....? Did I hear, "Gee, my kids were so excited about going off to learn something today"....? Nope. I heard, "Whew! I'm so glad school started. They were driving me nuts."

Most people, if asked, will say they want their kids to get a decent education. And most want the schools to do all the work. I see that as abdicating parental responsibility.

By the way, if you haven't ever read up on the history of mandated education, I suggest you do. It's fascinating.