Right to homeschool in jeopardy?
I am a big fan of William O. Douglass and his Daily Dose blog. Douglass is an MD who likes to refute common medical practice with evidence he has gleaned from real reasearch and alternative studies.
He is distinctly anti-Big Pharma and pro-natural and alternative cures. In a recent article, he writes about how homeschooling may be in jeopardy thanks to the ruling of a California judge.
The ruling involves the youngest two children of the Long family in Los Angeles County. The 2nd Appellate Judge McCroskey sides with the state over the rights of the parents.
Douglass writes: The ruling affirmed that the original trial court had found evidence that "keeping children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the chidrens' lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' "cloistered" setting.
This infuriates him, and he launches into rant mode: Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to be sure that MY children interact with people outside of MY family!? Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to determine what is or is not a "cloistered" environment? And when has the emotional development of MY children EVER been the business of some government bureaucrat?
He's got a point.
Although I have never been homeschooled, nor has anyone in my family, I respect homeschoolers for the commitement they show. From what I have read, most do a commendable job. Homeschooled kids score on average higher than those who attend public schools and I can't imagine a more nurturing place to learn than one's own home, free from bullies, intimidation and peer pressure.
As our educational system slips more into crisis, and our government's attempt to rectify the problems is simply to implement more standardization like No Child Left Behind, I am increasingly convinced that homeschooling is not only a valid option, but a wise one for parents who have the time and the resources.
But that's not really the point of this article. What Douglass fears is another manifestation of the nanny state.
I have a dear friend who is a social worker. He is smart, moral and exceedingly repsonsible. I am not attacking the entire social service network, but I am suggesting that as it becomes more intrusive into our personal lives, the opportunities for abuse are going to multiply, perhaps at exponential levels.
In what sense do our children belong to the state?
I would say not at all. But if you read social work text books and read the charters of child protective service agencies, you might be shocked at how they disagree with me and with most ordinary Americans.
Let's try to put a check on this craziness. Protecting children is in everyone's best interests, but I think that the parents are far more suited to deciding what that best interest is than is the state.
He is distinctly anti-Big Pharma and pro-natural and alternative cures. In a recent article, he writes about how homeschooling may be in jeopardy thanks to the ruling of a California judge.
The ruling involves the youngest two children of the Long family in Los Angeles County. The 2nd Appellate Judge McCroskey sides with the state over the rights of the parents.
Douglass writes: The ruling affirmed that the original trial court had found evidence that "keeping children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the chidrens' lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' "cloistered" setting.
This infuriates him, and he launches into rant mode: Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to be sure that MY children interact with people outside of MY family!? Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to determine what is or is not a "cloistered" environment? And when has the emotional development of MY children EVER been the business of some government bureaucrat?
He's got a point.
Although I have never been homeschooled, nor has anyone in my family, I respect homeschoolers for the commitement they show. From what I have read, most do a commendable job. Homeschooled kids score on average higher than those who attend public schools and I can't imagine a more nurturing place to learn than one's own home, free from bullies, intimidation and peer pressure.
As our educational system slips more into crisis, and our government's attempt to rectify the problems is simply to implement more standardization like No Child Left Behind, I am increasingly convinced that homeschooling is not only a valid option, but a wise one for parents who have the time and the resources.
But that's not really the point of this article. What Douglass fears is another manifestation of the nanny state.
I have a dear friend who is a social worker. He is smart, moral and exceedingly repsonsible. I am not attacking the entire social service network, but I am suggesting that as it becomes more intrusive into our personal lives, the opportunities for abuse are going to multiply, perhaps at exponential levels.
In what sense do our children belong to the state?
I would say not at all. But if you read social work text books and read the charters of child protective service agencies, you might be shocked at how they disagree with me and with most ordinary Americans.
Let's try to put a check on this craziness. Protecting children is in everyone's best interests, but I think that the parents are far more suited to deciding what that best interest is than is the state.
Comments