NY Times Calls for Homeschooling Oversight

I think your comment pretty much sums it up:
"Because, you know, so many of us homeschoolers are abusing our kids and the schools catch and stop so many cases of abuse."

They're just looking for something to blame and the fact that they were 'schooled at home' is an easy target. Why does the media feel a need to vilify all homeschooling families based on the horrible results of a few isolated cases? It's about like saying that Ford cars are unsafe because a few fatal accidents have occured when people were driving Fords!

Geez, and I always thought school was just for learning your reading, writing and arithmetic. No longer! Now schools (i.e., the state) are the de facto guardians of American children?

At least the "presumption of guilt" extends equally to all parents whether they homeschool or public school.

Dear Editor,

Your homeschooling editorial of November 15, 2003, in which you called for more supervision of homeschooling parents, was way off base. You cite two reasons for your call for more monitoring. The first is so that cases of abuse and neglect can be discovered and reported. While this is an admirable goal, curtailing the freedoms of responsible homeschoolers is not the way to achieve this goal. "Hard cases make bad law," I believe the saying goes. The job of the education establishment is to educate our children (and it's not even living up to that job); it is not to police families. The second reason you gave for the need for more supervision of homeschooling parents is so that the state can be assured that children are learning basic skills. This is also a valid concern but one that is already addressed in states' laws requiring that homeschooled children participate in yearly standardized testing or have annual portfolio reviews. Sending monitors into the homes of homeschooling parents would be a colossal waste of money and an unneeded duplication of efforts in many ways. It woul also impinge on parents' rights to privacy. The education system's job is not to monitor or supervise homeschooling families. Many court cases have shown that this country's Constitution guarantees parents the right to educate their children free from government interference, be this in 18th-century farm country or 21st-century urban America.

Sincerely,
Daneille Vrtar
Dayton, OH

If i read correctly some of these children in this story were adopted...I know that all states do some sort of homestudy for adoptions so then how did it get to this point.Sounds to me like the social service department failed in doing its job long before by allowing these abuseres to adopt in the first place,but of course nothing is the fault of the social services departments of this country.It seems no matter how many cases come up where they are sued(i can only imaging how many more where they dont get sued and just get away with it)we dont see any policy change.It was like what was said in the other post about the homebirth.They demand entry into your home without warrent,they demand to search your home without warrent,to search your kids,to review medical records,just whatever they want with no court orders all on annonymus reports.They spend thier time harrassing loving parents and parents who are abusers constantly go unhindered until the situation is dire or fatal.When they take kids from loving homes its a mistake that couldnt be avoided and when kids go unprotected it isnt thier fault they balme the homeschoolers or blame whoever is handy.I belive this is a result of one government agency who doesnt have to uphold constiutional rights.

I like what Clancy had to say. It seems this family's case is putting a label on homeschoolers. My dh and I have noticed that whenever you hear of a wreck on the news and a SUV was involved, all of the sudden it's because of the SUV (blamed on the rollover, or death, or something). Or, if the story were turned around on me, taking my children away because farm machinery is dangerous and some kid somewhere was maimed or killed.

And it does seem in this case that something should have been done way before from a social worker or someone who follows up on adoptions.

I do think that something should be done about somehow checking to see if ALL children (homeschooled or not, adopted or not, anything else or not. ALL) are thriving in their enviroments, home and academically. But then you get into privacy issues. There is too much grey area, and I don't have the answer. More teachers, more social workers, more money. Then would those that are doing their best but it isn't good enough for some nitpicky teacher or social worker be scrutinized and action taken against this family rather than the one in NJ (back to the homebirth case)?

I guess the bottom line is, no one is going to be made happy all at the same time. This case pissed off homeschoolers, but it could have just as easily been directed at adoptive parents, or race (whatever they were), or economic factors, housing, occupation; you name it, some "group" is going to be mad about any case.

In a perfect world, we would all get along, all kids would be taken care of and educated well without interferance from the gov't, and money wouldn't be a problem. Star Trek: TNG anyone? I especially like the idea on ST:TNG of replicators for food and self cleaning ships. LOL!

So what is the solution? Should we just leave every parent alone? After all, it's their children, if they want to abuse them, screw them up and do whatever, or take care of them right, then the state shouldn't be involved. That takes care of the radical side of social workers (the ones that take kids away because of the nude breastfeeding photo, remember that thread a while back, as well as the homebirth case the other day). Also takes care of the well meaning ones. That is what every parent wants, for the gov't not to be involved in how their children are raised. Freedom to school the way you want (that makes the homeschoolers happy), to discipline the way you want (that makes the spankers but not abusers happy), eating habits (there was a case in Albuquerque not too long ago about a 4 or 5 year old who was REALLY overweight and was taken away. Turned out she has a medical disorder and it wasn't the parents' fault).

Ok, if that isn't the solution, then where do you draw the line? Do we exclude everyone that homeschools because it may make them mad? Exclude by race because that may make someone mad (hmmm, Jesse Jackson comes to mind. He's pissed because Jessica Lynch got a book and movie deal and more disability and Shoshanna didn't, though Shoshanna says SHE'S not angry about it because Jessica's injuries were far more extensive than her own).

Lynn, this may come out wrong. Just remember that I'm just trying to say what's on my mind and I'm not really sure how to get it across. I stopped and vacuumed the house as I thought about how to say this. I feel I know you are a good mother and good homeschooler.

You took offense to this article because you are a homeschooler and are seeing it from a homeschooler's prespective. It affects you very personally. You don't want anyone coming in and telling you how to school your children. And I think, to you, an outsider (non-homeschooler, in this case) just doesn't understand a bit of where you are coming from. And maybe I don't. But I don't understand what you (not YOU, I mean homeschoolers) want. It sounds like to be left alone, no matter what the costs to those homeschooled children slipping threw the cracks. Not to say that public school are better. I guess there is no solution. But I could easily not allow my children to see other people and no one would know. I could homeschool them, not go to church, have DH watch them while I go to the store, and who would know if my children were abused or starved, especially if I had no family or friends over. Makes you think... You wouldn't ever know, unless the state came out to check on things every now and then.

Now, take that Meatrix thread you and I had going a couple weeks ago. That affected me very personally, because it is sort of attacking the way I make a living. I don't want to only grass-feed my beef, I like the product of grain and grass fed beef. But to you, it's like, why on earth would you not want to? I felt like you were an outsider to my business and didn't understand a bit where I was coming from.

I guess the solution to both problems you and I face are this: You buy your beef from someone that raises it the way you want, and I'll not ask if your kids are meeting any requirements for their level and trust they are well fed, healthy, etc. (which, of course, I know they are).

Well, I'm not sure if you can see what I'm thinking. Hopefully I put it clearly, but then again, it may have just ticked you off and look at my remarks blindly Which is the way I think we all sometimes look at things when we are on the defensive. I don't want to see your way of raising beef or attachment parenting, maybe you don't want to see my prespective of the article, my take on regulation of homeschooling, or of parenting for that matter.

It's all prespective, isn't it
:) :) :)

I understand where Lynn's coming from...in this case, to defend homeschoolers' rights is to defend the rights of all parents. I do believe that parents are responsible for their children, not the state! I hardly need to point out that there are laws already on the books to prosecute child abusers. We need to stay away from the social engineering business because it ends up impinging on personal freedoms. It amazes me that we've come to the point where we have judges telling parents whether they will immunize their children, etc., much less how they will parent them.

This is an imperfect (in my view, fallen) world, rife with tragedy and injustice. No government on earth, no matter how well-conceived & democratic, will be able to eliminate abuse, and certainly not by micromanaging every single person who ever has a child. The only way to eliminate abuse would be for every parent to be a good, principled & loving person. For evidence that gov't is not good at micromanagement, consider that social services already routinely fail children, as Lynn pointed out and as the case under consideration glaringly illustrates. That's the inefficient (to say the least) nature of beauraucracy. Of course we all feel for overloaded social workers, as we do for public school teachers.

The fact is, the gov't has no business coming into our homes without a warrant based on probable cause. If in doubt about this, read the Constitution, Fourth Amendment.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

When abuse is discovered, then the law comes into play. Solid evidence of abuse (not anonymous tips) can warrant search & seizure. But if a person indicted for a crime is innocent until proven guilty, how much *more* so a parent who's just going about their daily business? Of course children ought not be the victims of injustice or crime any more than adults, but, as many crimes go undiscovered or unsolved by the police, and so does much child abuse by DFACS.

If social ills could be solved by meddling beaureaucrats, wouldn't we be a bit closer to utopia by now?

Danna's letter was wonderfully rational & concise BTW.

Lynn, No, I don't want the gov't coming to check on me, though if they must, go ahead, I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of (as I'm sure you don't either). And, like you, I can think of lots better ways for the gov't to spend it's money. I knew I would mess up saying what I was trying to get across. I know you didn't mean ME. And I took your beef comments the way you meant them. I was just trying to say how different prespectives are when you are on two completely different sides of the fence, not trying to raise the beef argument on a homeschool thread. Although the article points it's finger at homeschoolers, I, not being a homeschooler, don't find it near as offensive as you [homeschoolers]. Now, as you said earlier, put "parent" in for "homeschoolers", and I would.

I'll shut up now , cuz all I have to say I already said. LOL! Just that yes, we need gov't intervention somewhere, the question is, where and how much.

From the Home School Legal Defense Association website:

To the Editor,

The recent editorial 'Make Home Schooling Safe for Children' called for increasing the regulation of homeschools because homeschool families may be hiding their children from government officials in order to abuse them. The suggestion that the New Jersey family at issue was not discovered because they were homeschooled is factually incorrect. They were a foster family. They had adopted children. Both of these activities normally require home visits. Moreover, this family had 38 social worker visits in the past five years. How can anyone seriously suggest that this family successfully hid from social workers because of homeschooling? Nine employees of New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services were fired for missing what should have been obvious. This case is not about homeschooling. If anything, it is about the failure of child protective services.

It is unfair to take, as the Times did, a sensational case involving an alleged homeschool family and imply that many other homeschool families are likely to be abusing their children as well. Unfortunately, an editorial like this plants a seed in the public's mind that there is a link between home education and child abuse. Consequently, some people might actually believe it and use the anonymous tip procedures available to report homeschool families for abuse and neglect without any factual basis for doing so. Child Protective Services are obligated to follow-up these reports and homeschool families will face unwarranted harassment. This already happens all too frequently to families all across America. More importantly, real abuse will be missed because the system may be clogged with false reports.

Homeschooling meets the educational needs of 2 million children and is the safest environment to teach children to become mature productive adults. It deserves fairer treatment.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
President, Home School Legal Defense Association