5 ms·

One of the biggest, most important roles of public schools is to pry children away from their parents and give them baseline floor of education and independence

One of the biggest, most important roles of public schools is to pry children away from their parents and give them baseline floor of education and independence (as well as force them to interact with the public, giving them context for what's normal and presenting opportunities for abuse to be discovered), no matter how crazy or abusive their parents are. The education can be pretty mediocre, as long as it achieves this goal. Letting parents opt out of public schools means that the most committed abusers get to sidestep this safety valve.

tomrod 3y ago
Completely disagree. It's an unfortunate outcome of our society, and should not be a celebrated role of schools, to be police, meal kitchens, exercise facility, or child care. Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most. School's primary mission is to serve the needs of a societies children. Inactive children don't learn as well as active children (especially boys). Hungry children don't learn as well as feed children. Abused children don't thrive. I'm deeply curious why you don't want public school children feed or protected from abuse.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > I'm deeply curious why you don't want public school children feed or protected from abuse. My children are more important to me than, well... just about anything. Including your children or anyone else's. If other people are so subhuman as to harm their own children, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make so that my children aren't abused by the public school system, aren't turned into idiots by the public school system, and aren't indoctrinated by the public school system. Do you think that when there's a string of tweenage suicides, that the contagion didn't spread via public schools? Am I supposed to put my kids at risk of that, just so you can pretend you'll catch the 1-in-10,000 of horrific abuse, which CPS will just ignore anyway? You offer a bad bargain. I pay everything and get nothing. Fortunately (and I mean this in a way that the words just can't do it justice... "fortune" of the sort like out of Greek mythology where the gods have smiled upon me and bestowed every blessing and boon) I don't have to take that deal.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Oh, I love strawmen too! I brought my 2024 Easton Ghost Unlimited Pitch Black, what did you bring to the beating? Primary schooling's mission is to educate children about capabilities to provide for themselves and those in there care as well as operate as how to perform and behave as productive members of society. Ancillary benefits are nice, but not required, to achieve that mission, thus should only be included in the strategy to the point that they support the overall mission. So kids learn better when both active and not hungry? Yep, we know this, and thus justifies having lunch, cafeterias, gyms, and PE class. (We should have more funding for these things). So kids learn better when not abused? Yep, we know this, and thus schools are typically required reporters. (And thank goodness they are -- we should fund more training on these things). What you missed in my prior comment was that the argument wasn't against any of these outcomes. It was bemoaning that society requires these ancillary benefits in schools in order for society to continue operating at all, not that it's nice that schools are available as resources to provide what should be a child's primary caregiver's responsibilities. Thus my comment. Schools shouldn't have to be police, meal kitchens, exercise facility, or child care in order for society to function. But they too often are. It's a failure of policy to which no one holds others to account. And insisting or expecting that schools provide these as primary responsibilities does harm to the students to whom need these in their lives, but for the school would not have them. Help the marginal student? Yes, absolutely, we should fund. Provide long term assistance (disguised welfare) through the schools? Not appropriate, a full change in situation is warranted for basic needs to be met for children by their caregivers. Consider this. During the pandemic, we could have conscripted all school teachers in the first few weeks to deliver food to everyone within their school operating areas. A ready, idle workforce to solve one of the fundamental problems, allowing virtually everyone but teachers to remain locked down while focusing use of protective gear during its limited availability. Why didn't we rely on the schooling workforce to deliver food during lockdown? Most of the answers I can see apply to long term welfare and social safety net assistance being provided through schools as well -- training, safety, and other elements that simply aren't appropriate to expect of educators.
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      > Oh, I love strawmen too! You said: > Completely disagree. [...] Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most. This response makes it sound like you don't "Completely disagree." after all.
- StevePerkins 3y ago
  The fact that school provides ancillary benefits beyond education is great. But portraying those as the primary mission, and the education as an ancillary benefit, IS pretty jarring. I don't homeschool, but I balk at that argument too.
  - markhahn 3y ago
    doesn't say "ancillary". but even if that's what the author meant, what's wrong with education being a necessary support for other goals? it's always quite hard to identify tangible skills that traditional education actually teaches, and explain why those are important to the real lives of graduates. the average person needs, day-to-day, pretty minimal R,W&A skills.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      No worries, I believe you may have misinterpreted what I said. See other thread.
caeril 3y ago
> Letting parents opt out of public schools means that the most committed abusers get to sidestep this safety valve. Absolutely insane take. This is a street that goes both ways. I had parents who were caring, nurturing, and not even remotely abusive. The other children at my public school were physically and emotionally merciless, and the school didn't give a shit. When I started standing up to my bullies and fighting back, I was the one who got in trouble, not them. In my n=1 data set and lived experience, public schools are the evil, twisted abuse enablers, not the parents. And you don't need n=1, this is extremely common.
arkey 3y ago
I'm at a loss for words. It's as if you assume that a family is by default an abuse mechanism. And that schools are a safe haven? Not sure which is worse. I have an education thanks to my family and despite public education. I was partially homeschooled. It was my family who helped me go through high-school, not the other way around. For the high-school I went to, I could have (and almost did at one point) ended up being dead, for all they cared. I won't deny there's abuse and cases in which public institutions have helped and saved people, but by assuming that this is the norm you completely overshot it here with your absolutism.
- Pinsy352 3y ago
  I think we can agree that most families aren't abusive towards their children. And that homeschool education can be as good if not better than public school education. I was homeschooled K-12 myself, and I now have a college degree in software. I disagree with your risk assessment, though. Most kids who are abused are most likely to be abused by a parent, not a stranger. (source: https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/ https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/nationa...) Homeschool requirements vary wildly by state, and even in states with more requirements like testing, kids slip through the cracks. I was never required to take a standardize test by either of the states I lived in (Washington and Oregon). I knew a homeschool girl my age (12) who could not read. Her 16 year old brother could read, but could barely do math. They had no learning disabilities, their mom just wanted the welfare paycheck for them and otherwise ignored them. She already had a 5 year old and a newborn as well to keep the gravy train coming. I had very little access to mandated reporters, and again nothing enforced by law. Those I did have access to, like my annual visit to my doctor, my mother insisted in sitting in the exam room with me. The doctors made no effort to remove her (they asked me in front of her if I was comfortable with her staying. Of course I said yes, I would have been severely punished at home if I admitted I wanted her to leave.) Safety rules are not made with the 99% of good people in mind, but to catch the 1% of bad actors. Homeschooling is attractive to good parents because they can improve the outcomes for their children. It is also attractive to bad, abusive parents because it removes children from any external oversight and support structures outside their abuser's control.
hex4def6 3y ago
>Letting parents opt out of public schools means that the most committed abusers get to sidestep this safety valve. I'm glad you had a good school experience. I was lucky to avoid the worst of it, but I knew kids who grew up with lifelong PTSD from the bullying / abuse, and complete apathy of the school system. Likewise, I knew kids at school who had terrible home lives. This was almost a result of drug or alcohol abuse, or just plain neglect on the part of the parents. The children were treated as an annoyance or inconvenience. These parents were glad that school got them out of their sight; I'm sure if boarding schools were free they would happily sent their kids off to one. I'm convinced that the percentage of parents that would actively make it a full time job to torment their children by homeschooling them is a vanishingly small number. Bad parents simply don't care about their children.
- Pinsy352 3y ago
  /r/homeschoolrecovery's numbers seem to suggest otherwise.

tomrod 3y ago

Completely disagree. It's an unfortunate outcome of our society, and should not be a celebrated role of schools, to be police, meal kitchens, exercise facility, or child care. Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most. School's primary mission is to serve the needs of a societies children. Inactive children don't learn as well as active children (especially boys). Hungry children don't learn as well as feed children. Abused children don't thrive. I'm deeply curious why you don't want public school children feed or protected from abuse.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > I'm deeply curious why you don't want public school children feed or protected from abuse. My children are more important to me than, well... just about anything. Including your children or anyone else's. If other people are so subhuman as to harm their own children, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make so that my children aren't abused by the public school system, aren't turned into idiots by the public school system, and aren't indoctrinated by the public school system. Do you think that when there's a string of tweenage suicides, that the contagion didn't spread via public schools? Am I supposed to put my kids at risk of that, just so you can pretend you'll catch the 1-in-10,000 of horrific abuse, which CPS will just ignore anyway? You offer a bad bargain. I pay everything and get nothing. Fortunately (and I mean this in a way that the words just can't do it justice... "fortune" of the sort like out of Greek mythology where the gods have smiled upon me and bestowed every blessing and boon) I don't have to take that deal.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Oh, I love strawmen too! I brought my 2024 Easton Ghost Unlimited Pitch Black, what did you bring to the beating? Primary schooling's mission is to educate children about capabilities to provide for themselves and those in there care as well as operate as how to perform and behave as productive members of society. Ancillary benefits are nice, but not required, to achieve that mission, thus should only be included in the strategy to the point that they support the overall mission. So kids learn better when both active and not hungry? Yep, we know this, and thus justifies having lunch, cafeterias, gyms, and PE class. (We should have more funding for these things). So kids learn better when not abused? Yep, we know this, and thus schools are typically required reporters. (And thank goodness they are -- we should fund more training on these things). What you missed in my prior comment was that the argument wasn't against any of these outcomes. It was bemoaning that society requires these ancillary benefits in schools in order for society to continue operating at all, not that it's nice that schools are available as resources to provide what should be a child's primary caregiver's responsibilities. Thus my comment. Schools shouldn't have to be police, meal kitchens, exercise facility, or child care in order for society to function. But they too often are. It's a failure of policy to which no one holds others to account. And insisting or expecting that schools provide these as primary responsibilities does harm to the students to whom need these in their lives, but for the school would not have them. Help the marginal student? Yes, absolutely, we should fund. Provide long term assistance (disguised welfare) through the schools? Not appropriate, a full change in situation is warranted for basic needs to be met for children by their caregivers. Consider this. During the pandemic, we could have conscripted all school teachers in the first few weeks to deliver food to everyone within their school operating areas. A ready, idle workforce to solve one of the fundamental problems, allowing virtually everyone but teachers to remain locked down while focusing use of protective gear during its limited availability. Why didn't we rely on the schooling workforce to deliver food during lockdown? Most of the answers I can see apply to long term welfare and social safety net assistance being provided through schools as well -- training, safety, and other elements that simply aren't appropriate to expect of educators.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    > Oh, I love strawmen too! You said: > Completely disagree. [...] Any distraction from a school's primary mission to educate disparately impacts the people who need it most. This response makes it sound like you don't "Completely disagree." after all.
StevePerkins 3y ago
The fact that school provides ancillary benefits beyond education is great. But portraying those as the primary mission, and the education as an ancillary benefit, IS pretty jarring. I don't homeschool, but I balk at that argument too.
- markhahn 3y ago
  doesn't say "ancillary". but even if that's what the author meant, what's wrong with education being a necessary support for other goals? it's always quite hard to identify tangible skills that traditional education actually teaches, and explain why those are important to the real lives of graduates. the average person needs, day-to-day, pretty minimal R,W&A skills.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    No worries, I believe you may have misinterpreted what I said. See other thread.

caeril 3y ago

> Letting parents opt out of public schools means that the most committed abusers get to sidestep this safety valve. Absolutely insane take. This is a street that goes both ways. I had parents who were caring, nurturing, and not even remotely abusive. The other children at my public school were physically and emotionally merciless, and the school didn't give a shit. When I started standing up to my bullies and fighting back, I was the one who got in trouble, not them. In my n=1 data set and lived experience, public schools are the evil, twisted abuse enablers, not the parents. And you don't need n=1, this is extremely common.

arkey 3y ago

I'm at a loss for words. It's as if you assume that a family is by default an abuse mechanism. And that schools are a safe haven? Not sure which is worse. I have an education thanks to my family and despite public education. I was partially homeschooled. It was my family who helped me go through high-school, not the other way around. For the high-school I went to, I could have (and almost did at one point) ended up being dead, for all they cared. I won't deny there's abuse and cases in which public institutions have helped and saved people, but by assuming that this is the norm you completely overshot it here with your absolutism.

Pinsy352 3y ago
I think we can agree that most families aren't abusive towards their children. And that homeschool education can be as good if not better than public school education. I was homeschooled K-12 myself, and I now have a college degree in software. I disagree with your risk assessment, though. Most kids who are abused are most likely to be abused by a parent, not a stranger. (source: https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/ https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/nationa...) Homeschool requirements vary wildly by state, and even in states with more requirements like testing, kids slip through the cracks. I was never required to take a standardize test by either of the states I lived in (Washington and Oregon). I knew a homeschool girl my age (12) who could not read. Her 16 year old brother could read, but could barely do math. They had no learning disabilities, their mom just wanted the welfare paycheck for them and otherwise ignored them. She already had a 5 year old and a newborn as well to keep the gravy train coming. I had very little access to mandated reporters, and again nothing enforced by law. Those I did have access to, like my annual visit to my doctor, my mother insisted in sitting in the exam room with me. The doctors made no effort to remove her (they asked me in front of her if I was comfortable with her staying. Of course I said yes, I would have been severely punished at home if I admitted I wanted her to leave.) Safety rules are not made with the 99% of good people in mind, but to catch the 1% of bad actors. Homeschooling is attractive to good parents because they can improve the outcomes for their children. It is also attractive to bad, abusive parents because it removes children from any external oversight and support structures outside their abuser's control.

hex4def6 3y ago

>Letting parents opt out of public schools means that the most committed abusers get to sidestep this safety valve. I'm glad you had a good school experience. I was lucky to avoid the worst of it, but I knew kids who grew up with lifelong PTSD from the bullying / abuse, and complete apathy of the school system. Likewise, I knew kids at school who had terrible home lives. This was almost a result of drug or alcohol abuse, or just plain neglect on the part of the parents. The children were treated as an annoyance or inconvenience. These parents were glad that school got them out of their sight; I'm sure if boarding schools were free they would happily sent their kids off to one. I'm convinced that the percentage of parents that would actively make it a full time job to torment their children by homeschooling them is a vanishingly small number. Bad parents simply don't care about their children.

Pinsy352 3y ago
/r/homeschoolrecovery's numbers seem to suggest otherwise.