California says "No" to homeschooling

Absolutely NOT true. I was a CPS investigator and I taught in urban public schools for 10 years (elementary grades) and I had kids whose meals consisted of exactly that at home. They got free brekkie and lunch at school and ate the twinkies and coke at home. That's all they had at night and all weekend long and on holidays.

Child protective services for what kids are fed at home? Never happens.

I had kids in my class who wore the same clothes to school every day. CPS? not a chance.

I had kids who were left home alone at ages 9 and 10 while parents worked all night. CPS? Never did anything.

CPS has far more serious issues to deal with than poor food and clothing issues. I had kids who were beaten and abused and that's what CSP deals with.

There's a lot of "bad" out there in the world and a lot of kids who suffer for it. But the "government" won't step in unless there's a danger to life or limb.

You can take that to the bank. I've seen it up close and personal.

 

This is true and still it happens every day, in every city, in both poor and affluent areas. There's no license required to have kids and so the apathetic, lazy, or stupid seem to have more kids than anyone else. And apathetic, lazy, and stupid is not just in urban and poor areas. In the public schools, we're seeing that more and more every year in the affluent areas as well.

 

>>

Thanks for adding your experience to this. People forget that food choices are simply cultural decisions.

 

Absolutely IS true.

Not nearly as often as I have, I can promise you that. Who do you think alerts child service agencies the most often to begin with?

Driving your children towards diabetes is not a cultural decision.

 

In California, nobody may legally engage in the practice of psychology unless he or she is licensed. It doesn't become ok to practice unlicensed psychology if the services are offered for free.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=02001-03000&file=2900-2919

The same thing is true of medicine. What's being regulated is the practice, not the sale:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=02001-03000&file=2050-2079

What connection is there between homeschooling and teaching? Why should anyone automatically assume that when parents take it upon themselves to homeschool, that teaching and learning will actually occur?

I think that a great many social problems are at least partly the result of people producing children that they are unable or unwilling to raise properly. The problems that (some homeschooling advocates contend) corrupt the public schools are attributable in part to importing those social problems into the school system.

So isn't there a contradiction between recoiling from these bad-parenting problems on one hand (by advocating homeschooling), while insisting on parents' rights to create them on the other (by treating homechooling as a parental right)?

 

Driving your children to wards diabetes is not a cultural decision.[/QUOTE]>>

I STRONGLY disagree. It's absolutely, 100% cultural in every possible way. Try feeding your children bamboo worms, black fungus, and ants. Highly nutritious- but that's more likely to land you the center of some "concerned" American's attention. They SELL JUNK FOOD IN PUBLIC SCHOOL for goodness sakes! Profit restaurants THRIVE in schools- that's for another day, but you can google it sometime if you really are interested. Quite interesting. So- if you are expecting school to supervise your child's nutrition you are sadly misguided.

I spent the weekend at the Loyola University Medical teaching hospital. Three meals a day for 4 days I watched residents (MDs and RDs) stuff themselves with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat- that's not even FOOD. It's cultural.

 

<<I think that a great many social problems are at least partly the result of people producing children that they are unable or unwilling to raise properly. The problems that (some homeschooling advocates contend) corrupt the public schools are attributable in part to importing those social problems into the school system.>>

I would disagree on many many levels with that statment.

<<So isn't there a contradiction between recoiling from these bad-parenting problems on one hand (by advocating homeschooling), while insisting on parents' rights to create them on the other (by treating homechooling as a parental right)?[/QUOTE]
>>

Only if you support the first statement, which I don't.

 

How CAN you disagree? Do you live in some affluent neighborhood with no exposure to the real world of the United States? My gosh, there are societal problems running rampant as a result of parents having kids that they either don't want or don't support. Explain, please.

To quote Steven Colbert "America used to live by the motto 'father knows best'. Now we're lucky if 'father knows he has children'."

Research has shown that children who grow up in poverty do not develop the necessary reading and verbal skills to be successful in school, and common sense will tell you that reading and communication skills are the basis for numerous academic subjects and jobs. When a womb mass produces babies, the demand for support puts stress on the families. Some of them may not even care because the children were unwanted in the first place.

What of the children who's parents are in jail? How much of a positive role model is that? Do you know how many students I've had with ankle bracelets, yet they are proud to show them off? Now THAT is a problem. And it's one of many, many problems our society faces.

 

If we dropped the "cumpulsory" aspect of education, then I couldn't care less about home schooling. Plus, it would rid the schools of a lot of kids whose parents don't support their education.

On the other hand, universal education and health care are two powerful forces in establishing and maintaining a middle class. This is why the rich are against them.

 

You may not like it, but it's not any less true.

I never mentioned school in regards to nutrition; you're setting up a strawman argument to then knock it down. You put it up there, not I.

What I said was: If you feed your kindergartener a steady diet of Twinkies, ice cream, cheese cake and Coca-Cola, you're going to land in the gunsights of your state child protection agency very quickly.

That's absolutely, positively, 100% true. When I go to a home on a child well-being check, the very first thing I do after making sure the children are alive and not injured is to check the cupboards and refrigerator. If they're empty or loaded with something out of Willy Wonka's factory and nothing else, the only way child services won't be at the home the next day is if they decide to come out immediately.

Physicians and nurses are adults. For the moment, it's not illegal for adults to eat things that are tremendously unhealthy for them.

 

Matt, of course all of what you said is true! I would totally agree (you must know from my siggy line that I enjoy the area of sociology a great deal). I shouldn't have quoted the entire OP passage- I really didn't like the suggestion that the children corrupted the schools- and that the homeschooling advocates (parents?) were trying to keep their little darlings away from them. To THAT I disagree. It is more likely that the parents are trying to limit exposure to children with different religions than their own.
While some people do homeschool for to reduce exposure to social ills at school, I don't believe it applies to most homeschoolers- especially the advocates. Homeschooling research I've read always shows "religion" as a number one reason most people homeschool, with academics and socialization as second and/or third respectively.

 

That's absolutely, positively, 100% true. When I go to a home on a child well-being check, the very first thing I do after making sure the children are alive and not injured is to check the cupboards and refrigerator. If they're empty or loaded with something out of Willy Wonka's factory and nothing else, the only way child services won't be at the home the next day is if they decide to come out immediately.
>>


Can you cite even a single example in our country's history of a child being removed from their parents due to junk food being served? (not lack of food) I am quite serious. I spent some time studying this last year-while working on a project that included this issue- I could never find one, but perhaps you have some insight.

 

No, because every parent I've seen in that situation has come around and accepted the services & help offered to them. Considering the alternatives, they didn't really have a choice, and that situation is relatively rare when compared to homes with inadequate food.

 

Limit exposure to children with no religion would be more accurate in my opinion.

Promiscuity, STD's, teen pregnancies, for example are social ills that are for the most part not found among religious students who practice their faith; religious behavior is connected to social behavior so they surely can not be viewed as separate reasons for homeschooling.

Susanna

 

Promiscuity, STD's, teen pregnancies, for example are social ills that are for the most part not found among religious students who practice their faith; religious behavior is connected to social behavior so they surely can not be viewed as separate reasons for homeschooling.

Susanna[/QUOTE]

>>

I understand what you are saying. I would say they are separate because not all homeschoolers are religious- though the majority seem to be- but those who are not probably feel that social issues come into play as a reason to homeschool. People who homeschool for religious reasons can sometimes also be the same people who send children to religious group schools- so there may be other factors involved (like social issues, academics, finances, geography, etc).

 

Reflections from a public, public charter, private, and home educator

I'm sorry for getting in to this discussion so late (I've been an infrequent poster of late), but the topic is fascinating to me. First, I'll repeat my post from the other homeschool thread, since my comments also reflect my feelings toward this thread:

What a fascinating discussion! Excellent points and concerns expressed all around. I’ll just add my observations as one who has 1) taught at public and private K-12 schools (including a charter school) and universities, 2) trained thousands of teachers in university teaching credential programs, 3) supervised teacher credential candidates at school sites, 4) is on the board of directors of a charter school, teach face-to-face, hybrid and online courses and 5) have had children educated in public, public charter, private and via homeschool.

Now, after that incredibly pompous introduction (which really makes no one on this forum any less qualified than I am to post her or his opinion), I’d like to offer my 1 ½ cents:

Although my wife and I are advocates for homeschooling our own children, we believe, as has been expressed well by several here already, the education of one’s children is one of parents’ most important and sacred responsibilities and, as such, parents need to be aware of all the available learning options for their children. While I do not believe that all families are cut out for homeschooling, I also know many parents who spend more time researching and shopping for a big screen TV than they do in considering where their children will be spending over ½ of there weekday waking hours.

Certainly, there is as much variation in the quality of homeschooling as there is in the variation of public and private schooling. While research studies have shown consistently that the homeschooled children studied have not suffered academically and socially, there are quack parents schooling their children at home and quack teachers in classrooms. When we talk about regulation, things get sticky, since evaluation tends to be the weakest area in education (it is very difficult to do well). We were to pass a law stating that a home-educated child who scored below “average grade achievement” could no longer be taught at home, could we be consistent and say that a public school-educated child who also scored below “average grade achievement” could no longer be educated in a public school?

I recently presented at a home-education conference with over 1,200 in attendance. I saw many different types of homeschoolers and homeschool styles, from yuppies to hippies (I have teacher colleagues who also fall within those categories). Some used “canned” curriculum, some used classical “great books,” some used constructivist-based “unschooling,” others used free online learning materials, webquests and lessons from the Internet (tons of fee stuff there). None of the older children seem to have had difficulty entering and succeeding in college/university.

Homeschooling works for many children and their parents, public, public charter and private schooling works for many children and their parents. Unfortunately, I also know many children for whom public school does not work, but the parents will not learn about or even consider other options. For those parents on Degreeinfo that take the time to investigate the options, visit the schools, talk to the teachers and administrators and realistically consider other options, such as home-education, bravo to you!

Anthony Piña, Ed.D.

 

About the California Situation...

I have read the Appellate Court's ruling. It is a foolish and error-ridden document that takes the situation of a family and generalizes it (incorrectly) to the homeschool population. The Court could have easily taken an instance of criminal action occurring at a public school and used it in a similar way. since the Court has granted a petition for rehearing, due to the local nature of the ruling (which nullifies the ruling for the present time),I really expect it to go away, because it is in the best interest of California public education to do so.

How can that be, you say? Particularly when local schools will get more ADA by bringing in all of the home schooled kids in the fold? Well, those home school parents already pay taxes (just like private school parents do). If the state now has to educate its current population PLUS home schooled children, the effect will be a proportional decrease in per pupil spending (since the total amount of education funding will not increase, but will need to be spread out across a larger population). This will hurt schools in areas without big homeschool populations. While local educational administrations may not get this, the folks in Sacramento sure do.

I stand by what I said in my last post. Homeschooling is not for everyone and there are some homeschoolers that probably should not be. However, there are scores of kids in public schools who are not well served either (I see them coming in unprepared academically, socially and in life skills to the higher ed institutions for which I have worked). I, of course, disagree with some of Rich and Bill's generalizations (although I respect their opinions immensely on a myriad of other topics). Having studied this (both quantitatively and qualitatively) for a decade and a half, I honest believe that home-education is not even remotely among our biggest social, nation (or educational) concerns.

By the way, I work currently for a public school and I am on the board of another public school. I believe in the value of public education, but do not believe that our SYSTEM of public education is set up to facilitate optimum learning.

Tony

 

Do you think that homeschooling can be successfully turned into a mass movement? Do you think that it's something that the average parent (whoever they are) should be considering? I have to say that I'm still worried about the scale-up question.

I've never suggested that it is. I do think however, that homeschooling would probably be an absolute disaster if parents in general ever got it into their minds to attempt it.

That being said, I think that it's irresponsible to sell homeschooling as if it was a wonderful option for any and all parents. There needs to be greater emphasis on distinguishing which parents and students are most and least likely to be successful. There needs to be some justification for confidence that homeschooled kids really are learning and aren't just being kept out of school for some reason. And there needs to be some mechanism available for identifying and intervening in the unfortunate cases where homeschooling becomes a euphemism for educational neglect.

 

BILL: Do you think that homeschooling can be successfully turned into a mass movement?
TONY: No, I don't. The current public school system meets the needs of many students and even more parents. Most parents are not interested in devoting the kind of time and effort required to educate their own children (particularly those with full-time jobs). It is far easier to let the schools do it.

BILL: Do you think that it's something that the average parent (whoever they are) should be considering?
TONY: Absolutely. They should consider ALL of the options available to their children (public schools, charter schools, private schools, university high schools, virtual schools and homeschooling) and make a decision based on what best meets the needs of the children. Most parents refuse to make that effort, since it is far easier to default to the local school.

BILL: I have to say that I'm still worried about the scale-up question.
TONY: I wouldn't worry much about it. Homeschooling will continue to grow, but the public school system will continue to be with us unless it is replaced by something else.

BILL: I do think however, that homeschooling would probably be an absolute disaster if parents in general ever got it into their minds to attempt it.
TONY: As I said, most parents are not interested in doing it or feel that they are not in a position to do so, even if they are interested--it is hard enough to be an "involved parent" in your child's school. Homeschooling is far more involved that that!

BILL: That being said, I think that it's irresponsible to sell homeschooling as if it was a wonderful option for any and all parents.
TONY: I do not know anyone (even the most ardent home schoolers) that believe that everyone can and should home school. It is not irresponsible in the least to say that homeschooling is a wonderful option that all parents should consider (and then decided whether they can and should do it or not). I feel that it is more irresponsible to promote the idea that the local public school is the only option.

BILL: There needs to be greater emphasis on distinguishing which parents and students are most and least likely to be successful.
TONY: Why? The public schools don't do this. The vast majority of public schooled children are assigned to a school based on geography, not based on what is most and least likely to promote their greatest success.

BILL: There needs to be some justification for confidence that homeschooled kids really are learning and aren't just being kept out of school for some reason.
TONY: Why? If a student is not learning well in a public school, it does not get shut down. If a child is not really learning, do we need some justification that they are not just being kept IN school for some reason?

BILL: And there needs to be some mechanism available for identifying and intervening in the unfortunate cases where homeschooling becomes a euphemism for educational neglect.
TONY: There is--just like for any other case of abuse and neglect. But here's the difficulty: How to you measure "educational neglect"? Educational testing is not incredibly sophisticated and reliable. If you test a home-educated child and a public school-educated child and they score equally low on this "educational neglect" test, I assume that you would say that the parents should not be allowed to teach the child. What would you suggest should happen to the public school? I ask this because it occurs frequently and NOTHING happens to the public school--except they may get more money and I would imagine that you would not recommend the same for homeschoolers.

Bill please do not think that I am advocating poorly educated children. I will be the first to say that there are many people who, in my opinion, should not be home-educators. However, I feel that it is inconsistent that we wish to impose penalties on home educators that we are unwilling to impose on the schools as well.

 

>>



((((((((((Standing ovation))))))))))