OT: Home Schooling

In the interest of interesting conversation and understanding, what do you mean?

The first I heard about it was from Hilary Clinton. I really don't care who originated the statement. It takes all of us to have a cohesive society, and because (in my belief) we have abandoned the idea in favor of more independence, we are fracturing. No longer can a neighbor or bystander scold a child for wrong doing. We are so concerned about our individual "rights" that we are forgetting collective rights, i.e. living quietly without the intrusion of your neighbors stereo system.

The statement, "It takes a village . . ." really has a very broad meaning. It means I have to pay taxes in order to assure that your child is educated, that the streets are paved, that water is safe. And so much more. :-)

And often perfect strangers. If I see a child throwing his pop can/bottle on the sidewalk, I'll reprimand him and ask that he pick it up and throw it in the trash. I may get flack, but I've done my societal job.

I just think that the buck has to stop with the

That's fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the greater good of society. If you allow your child to play his stereo so loud that I can't stand it, then your rules are infringing on my peace. :-)

And in those African villages, everybody was raised with the

You are pointing to a very sticky situation we are now facing. You are assuming that all parents who feel this way have the good of society in their mind at all times. In fact, that is not the case.

While I agree that parents have the ultimate authority, I can't help but believe you are really talking about religious beliefs rather than broad moral values.

I am very angry that the State of Wisconsin has a law forbidding parental interference after a child is 14. For instance, if a child is on drugs, a parent cannot insist he get help if the child doesn't want it. That is absolutely abrogating parental authority. The State may as well say the kid is an adult at 14.

I am angry that a 14- or 16-year old girl can get an abortion, or birth control pills without parental consent.

When we make statements, we have to be clear about what we're talking about.

You're forgetting, and I remember it well, that protestants at the time were opposed to adding this line to the pledge, and were angry at the catholics for having too much control of the legislature. This was a period of time when protestants and catholics were at odds with one another in a very open way. Children were often not allowed to make friends with the "other". They did, anyway. But socially it was deemed a taboo.

There was a lot of resentment when this line was added. In my estimation, an unnecessary addition to patriotism. I remember well having to throw those new words into a daily salute.

Children don't always have their own best interests in mind. Sometimes one has to act in ways that a child might not understand at the time. You are against the action because you are against was Newdow is doing.

This has been a question asked since public education started. It's nothing new. Religion, in the past, has been taught at home and in the religious institution of a families choice. It's not necessary to combine religion in education, unless it is broadly covered to teach differences and what's out there. Not teaching religion in public school is not bias. It's just leaving it out. Many parents have opted for private school if they want to include religion with general education.

And here we agree completely.

Perhaps because society, as a whole, is responsible? That's a good question. I'm not sure a parent is fired if the child fails. It just means they will have to try harder, get extra help, whatever.

Except most parents lack the will, the ability, the opportunity. You raise some interesting points, most of which I don't disagree with. These are difficult questions to answer.

This is what I meant when I said we are losing the concept of "It takes a village . . .". Our society is becoming so fractured, with different belief systems. In fact, I would offer to say that far too many adults are behaving as children. It's like we're not growing up as a society. Not that we were perfect in the past. But at least when Johnny was misbehaving, a parent seemed to be wise enough to know that another adult was probably right and gave them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It was the social glue.

I hear your fears, your frustrations. Dianne

Linda D. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Oh. Well, I know of some parents who have colossal blind spots when it comes to their children, but I also know parents who are in touch with their children and connect with them well.

21, 19, 17, and 13.

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

What I mean is exactly what I have said -- that the people in my neck of the woods (California, FWIW) take that phrase as meaning that parents are incapable of raising their children and that the govt. needs to assume that responsibility of making sure that children are raised, and their implementation of it is reminiscent of how the communists would inculcate communism into children in grade school.

These I have no problem with. I just believe very, VERY strongly that when it comes to making decisions for a child, the parent (who, after all, is footing the bill for it all) should have the final say on how the child is raised. Not the schools, not the government, etc.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of parents who have abdicated their responsibility as a parent, making schools and other government agencies feel that it is necessary for them to step in. Personally, I would rather see the parents brought to accountability rather than allowing the parent to further abdicate their responsibility, and personally I don't feel the need for them to take over for me as a parent when I am doing a perfectly good job.

I have no problem with that.

I wouldn't let them do that myself, even if they did play loud music, which they don't.

No. It's more than just religious beliefs themselves, although probably my personal eclectic worldview/religious beliefs/whatever color my broad moral values. For one example, my personal beliefs include the basic but currently-unpopular-in-the-US Christian teaching that if someone I know is doing something blatantly wrong, it is a kind thing to gently, kindly, and humbly point out to them that they are doing wrong so that (a) if they weren't aware of it, they won't be ignorant of it and (b) if they get in trouble for it, I will not ultimately share part of the blame because I failed to warn them about it. (Scripture verses supporting this principle available on request)

I agree with you on this.

You would probably enjoy reading the book, "The New Freedom," whose author I don't remember, but I read it something like 15-20 years ago. The premise of the book was that Americans are currently seeking a new freedom -- freedom from responsibility.

I am not old enough to remember that, actually.

Not in the town I grew up in. And when RC schoolmates came over on Fridays, we were always careful to serve them food they could eat.

I have read the issues that the Circuit Court judges have had to deal with, and I am not a blind sheep type who protests everything based on what it looks like on the surface.

No, I am primarily against the way he approached it. Personally I disagree with what he did, but I think the way he sought to accomplish it was not the best way he could have done it.

Do you know why public education in this country was started? There was no mandatory education law, but there were excellent private schools run by the Congregationalists, who we would see as solid evangelical types today, and there was minimal tuition for them, but any child who wanted to attend the school could easily arrange a free scholarship. But most children were taught at home by their parents or by tutors. Anyway, some Unitarians were offended that children who went to these *private* schools were "forced" to learn to read by reading from the Bible and primers chock full of Bible verses. (Note that nobody was forced to go to these schools, each student attended by their parent's free choice.) So they started a campaign to protest all the children who were not getting a good education and that they needed government-funded schools for all children to attend that would not have tuition charged to the parents. That way those "poor children who were forced to learn religion as part of their education" (remember again, the parents freely chose to send their children there and were equally free to not send them there) wouldn't be forced to get a Congregationalist education. (Source: NEA: Trojan Horse in Education by Samuel Blumenfeld).

I don't think that "religious instruction" in the sense of proselytiung for one faith or another has a part in public school system, as it must serve people of all faiths as well as of no faith. I don't agree with how far this has been taken, though, that nothing that might support any religion has to be excluded from the classroom. But of course, after

9/11 the schools conveniently ignored the principle that they hold Christianity to and started teaching children about Islam including in the case of the same school district who dropped spelling as a curriculum subject including in the Middle East part their world history curriculum having students learn about Islam, learn Moslem prayers, etc. If that had been Christianity they were doing that about, Michael Newdow would have had a cow.

And those people who have opted out should be allowed to be exempted from state regulations. But these people *also* include home schoolers.

Well, that's what some government people would like to do.

I agree.

Amen!

Personally I sometimes wonder whether the fact that young men don't get military discipline any more from having mandatory military service has anything to do with how society seems to have broken down so incredibly over the past 30 years. That type of discipline and order was invaluable to many.

Karen C - California wrote in news:3f3qptF5s1hqU2 @individual.net:

No, that was a German cultural thing -- Kinder, Kirche, und Kuchen (not sure about spelling on all of that), which translated to, "children, church, and cooking."

This being a local case, we got a lot more info about it than hit the national news. The daughter said something to the effect that if Newdow succeeded in getting "under God" removed from the Pledge, she would still whisper it.

This is a particularly messy child custody case, in which Newdow doesn't agree with anything either the court or the child's mother are doing. He was working ridiculous hours as an ER doctor, so the court (wisely) gave custody to the mother who had a more normal work schedule. He didn't like that. He doesn't like the amount of child support. He doesn't like that the mother, who is a Christian, takes the kid to church. If the judge said "black", Newdow would say "white", just to be a PITA.

I know this judge; he's only interested in what's best for the kid, and doesn't give a hoot about whether the parents like it. What's best for the kid is a custodial parent who is actually home, and, standard practice, where the parents disagree on child-rearing the court usually gives the final decision to the custodial parent. Since the custodial parent is a Christian, no judge is likely to make the kid feel like an outcast by being left home every Sunday morning.

Newdow and the mother were never married, so all the venom that would typically come out in a divorce case is being directed toward issues about the kid.

Since the Federal court decided the non-custodial parent "has no standing to sue", Newdow has re-filed the case naming other *intact* families as plaintiffs. As I understand it, he went to law school but did not pass the Bar exam, which leads me to think that if he's filing paperwork on behalf of other people, he's practicing law without a license.

I agree. As you say, in the old days, a neighbor could scold your child and you'd thank her for helping bring up your child well; now, they threaten to sue you for daring to embarrass them by pointing out their shortcomings.

Yes, there are some things that are best left to the parents' own principles, but there are also some things, like your example of littering (or stealing or murder), which are against the law, and should be corrected by anyone who sees it, without worrying that the parents are going to slug you.

"It takes a village" because parents can't be everywhere at all times -- the neighbors provide extra eyes and ears. "It takes a village" because parents often need emotional support.

That's a pretty wild theory!! Thanks for spelling it out so that I was sure what you were talking about. That theory is definitely not the broad understanding that I have of the idea of "It takes a village . . ."

We're in agreement here as you have outlined it.

I understand what you are saying. It saddens me. I liked the word you used about rejecting responsibility. Yes, that's exactly how I feel about far too many parents these days. Not all, of course. Maybe not even a majority. But far too many. As I said, it's like a good chunk of society has agreed not to grow up.

I've been saying this for at least 30 years. It's getting worse. But I also believe strongly that our social policies are hindering those who would be responsible. For instance, there used to be a law that you couldn't make a worker work for more than 6 hours without a lunch break of 20 minutes. That law is no longer in effect. So my husband sometimes works 12 hour shifts with no breaks. Now, usually he can eat on the run, but there have been a few times that has not been possible. So, if government doesn't demand responsibility of our corporations . . . . how can we ask it of the individual?

Oh, I know this happened. But there was a rivalry . . . much of it unspoken. Since you don't remember the change in the pledge of allegiance, you probably are enough younger than me to referrencing the lessening of the rivalry between catholics and protestants. And, of course, not everyone adhered to this rivalry. But it was there.

Nor am I. But I *do* resent having those words in the pledge.

Again, since you find value in the words, you have a slant on the issue.

I shall have to look up this book. Thanks for the insight.

Not having a children in school these days, I'm not sure what you mean here. All I know is that when I worked with sixth graders here, they didn't have a clue who Thomas Edison was. So, I think there's a LOT left out of education. :-)

But of course, after

Whoa! You're taking one school district and making a sweeping statement of the entire U.S. I heard a lot of talk on public radio about this phenomena and agree that learning something about the Middle East and Islam should be an important part of our education, just as we learn European history. I'm not sure students need to know any of their prayers. Perhaps in some larger metro areas who might include muslim children that prayers were taught as a way to understand better. I'm not sure.

Wanting and liking to do something is different than actually doing it. As we mentioned before: remaining vigilante is key. Same thing goes for democracy. If we don't remain vigilante and keep ourselves informed with things like the Patriot Act, then we have only ourselves to blame when the FBI comes sweeping into my home because I borrowed a biography on Osama bin Laden at the local library.

Dianne

He was homeschooled. Judy

Dianne, May we assume that you meant to say "remaining vigilant is key," as in remaining alertly watchful, as opposed to "remaining vigilante," as in being a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate)? (Definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.) This has been a most interesting discussion, and I just wanted to be sure I hadn't missed the tone somewhere along the way.

-- Carey

Forgive me for butting in. I'm very interested in this topic, as my first child is almost 2 and my next one is still baking. We haven't decided whether we're going to do this or not yet.

Melinda Meahan

This caught my eye. You are right, and those who reject it, are right insofar as how "the village" has been lately defined by certain politicians.

However, in my childhood, "the village" was the neighbor lady down the street who told you not to do the exact same thing your mother told you not to do, and would be sure to report you to your mother. In my childhood, most of the parents on the block were on the same wavelength and weren't gonna let anybody else's kids do what they wouldn't let their own kids do if they were in charge.

The more recent concept of "it takes a village" is a whole 'nuther paradigm of vague tolerance for anything the child wants to do.

LG

(nodding)....I understand where you are coming from. When I was a little girl most of the parents looked out for all the kids in the neighbourhood, unfortunately, these days there are very few SAHM's or SAHD's, so the kids aren't even in their own neighbourhood to play, they are at a daycare/afterschool care :( The fact my Mother worked outside the home was unusual, now it's the norm.

We have lived in the same neighbourhood for 20 yrs. I know 4 of my neighbours to talk to, the rest I have no idea of their names, where they work or anything else about them. It's pretty difficult to get to know people when DH works graveyard, my shifts change all the time, and we get one weekend a month off together. Luckily, my kids are in their 20's, so the knowing the kids in the neighbourhood isn't an issue.

...Linda

This summer will be the 14th annual neighborhood barbecue. And the

3rd " last weekend in May lobster boil". This year was the 3 year for a new years eve neighbour hood barbecue and pot luck. The lobster boil is organized by a newly retired couple and the new years eve barbecue by a young couple who moved to the street about 5 years ago. I think perhaps because we tend to get out an walk in this area that it is easier to meet people as I also know many from neighboring streets. But having at least one annual event where we all get together is the one single thing that lets us know each other. We used to have an annual picnic in my old neighborhood. It really only takes one person to go with the idea and organize it. For the lobster one we all order and pay for so many lobster and the neighbour who organizes it buys them from the fisherman. Everyone brings something to share, salad, appetizer. For the summer barbecue we just pull 4 or 5 barbecues to one section of the street, some barbecue backyard tables and chairs . Everyone brings their own food to barbecue and a dish to share and we all kick in 10 dollars towards the propane. Same for new years eve except it is the men who get to stand out in the open door ed garage and freeze while cooking. LOL! We are contemplating a move to a condo but I feel that no matter where I go something can always be organized, most people like to socialize and eat. LOL! Ruby

Yes, vigilant as in watchful, mindful. :-) Sorry about the spelling error. Some days are better than others. And I get caught up in the emotion of the words and forget to check what I typed. :-)

I have felt about this conversation as if I was having tea with friends, able to say what we felt without condemnation or fear, and listening intently, trying to understand what the other fellow was musing about.

Dianne

Carey N. wrote:

This totally confuses me. Why are we making this connotation to the words? I hadn't noticed any change in definition. Is it a "perceived" change, rather than an actual one? Are we confused as a nation?

I first heard the phrase said by Hillary Clinton, and have since heard it from other speakers not politically motivated. Each time I have heard it discussed, it meant what it's always meant: everyone on the same wavelength, reporting your bad deeds to your mother, etc. etc. Certainly not the opposite (vague tolerance for anything).

Dianne

I'm quite in agreement about this conversation's tone, exactly like a discussion over tea. Certainly gives one a lot to mull over, as you get to see how many different scenarios can occur in both home- and public-schooling environments.

-- Carey (must heat more tea......)

(Definitions

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

Me, too, and I've enjoyed it immensely. But then again, a long time ago somebody told me that in just the same manner as lots of ladies like trying on clothes to see how they fit and look, I like trying on ideas instead.

lizard-gumbo wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

I started because I knew that my oldest had some kind of problem (he's 21 and we're still not totally sure what is wrong with him; he sort of falls in between the cracks of everything) and the children I knew who had that problem had to spend hours after school with their mom having the stuff they wouldn't learn in school, and that plus the fact that our school district leaned as far away from phonics as possible make me decide that I was at least going to teach him to read, and if I was going to have to spend hours every day getting the learning into his head, I was jolly well going to be putting it there in the first place.

So we got a phonics curriculum and a math curriculum that both had a "you can't help but learn this" approach and tried it for a year, and at the end of the year we were hooked. Of course, the people in the grocery store would look at us funny as we'd go down the aisles singing, "OR for orbit, SH for shell. Sing along and learn this well. CH for chocolate and for child. ER-IR-UR; the rooster's wild." LOL

Linda D. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

There's a difference in mindset there, I think. In those days the other parents were doing a "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing, and for all I know the "it takes a village" proponents who I disagree with so much (as opposed to the ones I don't disagree with) probably would not agree that other parents are the people to pinch hit for the parents when they aren't around.

Stitcher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Are you in the US? I volunteer in a neighborhood improvement association, and they help us put on something for National Night Out, which is a designated weeknight in August, I think, when neighborhoods have block parties and get to know each other. The emphasis on NNO is to prevent crime by getting to know your neighbors better and hopefully learn to help watch over each other's houses so that if you see a stranger, you will know it. We have ice cream, rent a kiddie jumper, etc.