the requirement that the state *provide* an education

I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing kids
into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children who come to
school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about intellectually
ready. I mean things like having had an adequate breakfast with a lunchbox
of snack and lunch provided. I mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep
at least mostof the time. I mean coming to school free of stress from
monstorously disfunctional families.

In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur in other
places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a group that
discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated group who would
seek out such conversation. But whether or not this is going on in *our*
schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural school) it is a big part of
the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being
offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect
children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was offered
but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a disruptive
influence, instead of going through this weird discipline system that has no
teeth (if a student does not want to be there, then sticking them in
detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later
grades. If the child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted...
send them home until they are in a state to learn.

It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few years
back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in an uproad
about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from the system. I was
wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am trying to
kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this
country. I *do* however feel that the schools have had to take on more and
more and more of what used to be the place of the parent. And I am not sure
that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.

In article , Stephanie says...

I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing kids
into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children who come to
school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about intellectually
ready. I mean things like having had an adequate breakfast with a lunchbox
of snack and lunch provided. I mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep
at least mostof the time. I mean coming to school free of stress from
monstorously disfunctional families.

In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur in other
places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a group that
discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated group who would
seek out such conversation. But whether or not this is going on in *our*
schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural school) it is a big part of
the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being
offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect
children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was offered
but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a disruptive
influence, instead of going through this weird discipline system that has no
teeth (if a student does not want to be there, then sticking them in
detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later
grades. If the child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted...
send them home until they are in a state to learn.

It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few years
back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in an uproad
about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from the system. I was
wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am trying to
kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this
country. I *do* however feel that the schools have had to take on more and
more and more of what used to be the place of the parent. And I am not sure
that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.



The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so there is
personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so the parents
who would not prepare their kids for school, would have no personal incentive to
do so if required to prepare them, or no school.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children
who come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything*
about intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an
adequate breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I
mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the
time. I mean coming to school free of stress from monstorously
disfunctional families.

In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.

It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few
years back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in
an uproad about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from
the system. I was wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools have
had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the place
of the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.



The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so
there is personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so
the parents who would not prepare their kids for school, would have
no personal incentive to do so if required to prepare them, or no
school.

Banty


Except for the lack of free child care.

Stephanie wrote:
Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...
I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children
who come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything*
about intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an
adequate breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I
mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the
time. I mean coming to school free of stress from monstorously
disfunctional families.

In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.

It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few
years back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in
an uproad about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from
the system. I was wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools have
had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the place
of the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.


The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so
there is personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so
the parents who would not prepare their kids for school, would have
no personal incentive to do so if required to prepare them, or no
school.

Banty


Except for the lack of free child care.



IME the parents like you describe aren't particularly mindful of how
well their children are cared for. Most have a parent home - or have no
problem leaving older children in charge of younger children.

In article , Stephanie says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie


I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.
I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools have
had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the place
of the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.



The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so
there is personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so
the parents who would not prepare their kids for school, would have
no personal incentive to do so if required to prepare them, or no
school.

Banty


Except for the lack of free child care.



But, firstly, if you'd have students kicked "OUT particularly in the later
grades", where would the lack of free child care come in? They'd just be left
at home. Furthermore, for littler kids, very often what would happen is that
their care would be left to older sibs, taking *two* kids out of the school.

And where would this leave the public interest in educating these kids? They
still grow up to be adults, you know.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie


I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.
I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools
have had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the
place of the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

Interested in your thoughts.



The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so
there is personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so
the parents who would not prepare their kids for school, would have
no personal incentive to do so if required to prepare them, or no
school.

Banty


Except for the lack of free child care.



But, firstly, if you'd have students kicked "OUT particularly in the
later grades", where would the lack of free child care come in?
They'd just be left at home. Furthermore, for littler kids, very
often what would happen is that their care would be left to older
sibs, taking *two* kids out of the school.

And where would this leave the public interest in educating these
kids? They still grow up to be adults, you know.

Banty


Oh sure. Shoot down my little vent and aggrivation!

Stephanie schrieb:
snip
I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am trying to
kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this
country.

Well, in this country we have the Schulpflicht which means sending you
child to school is not optional, homeschooling/unschooling/etc. is
forbidden.

On one hand that's a good thing because losing track of a child is very
hard here. If you have a child that's old enough to go to school (6 and
over) you will get a letter informing you about which school your child
is "expected to show up at" and I guess if you don't register at that
school (I'm not sure if we now have a choice, they changed the laws
around that I think, but possibly you can register you child at any
primary school in your district now, anyway..) you get follow up
letters and probably a visit from the Jugendamt (cps) to inform you
about your rights and duties and if you/your child doesn't go to school
you/your child can be forced to do so, if necessary it'll be picked up
by the Police and escorted to school.

On the other hand I think for some children homeschooling or private
tutoring or something along those lines would be better. I think my son
would have benefited from not being forced into an education system
where there are 28 children in one classroom in first grade, but he's
mild special needs (he can not filter sounds and has problems
concentrating on speech, meaning a loud classroom for him means extreme
stress and after a while he's simply unable to listen to the teacher
anymore because there are so many sounds he just can't "hear" her
anymore, of course everyone thinks it's a isciplinary issue and I'm just
a really lax mom) he's changing classrooms again the next schoolyear
which means it's his 6th group in four years, and somehow that's
supposed to make it all better. Or something.

In recent years there have been families leaving germany because they
wanted to homeschool, some went to court before leaving the country, but
it's generally thought of as a good thing that school is mandatory.

cu
nicole

Stephanie wrote:
I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids into school.

I believe providing good, free education for its children is a primary
responsibility of The State, wherever your particular state happens to be,
and the costs for that should come out of the public purse via taxes leveled
at the highest level. (That is, state and federal, not neighbourhood.) I
also believe parents should have the right to choose to homeschool or pay
for private schooling but that state funding should only be applied to
private schools that meet or exceed the standards of education provided by
the state.


I am also flummoxed with the number of children who
come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about
intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an adequate
breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I mean having
gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the time. I mean
coming to school free of stress from monstorously disfunctional
families.

That is something that varies considerably from community to community,
unfortunately.


In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being
offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect
children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was
offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a
disruptive influence, instead of going through this weird discipline
system that has no teeth (if a student does not want to be there,
then sticking them in detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT,
particularly in the later grades. If the child comes to school unfed,
stinky and dirty, exhausted... send them home until they are in a
state to learn.


Punish him twice, you mean? Once with the bad luck of being born into a
dysfunctional home and the second time by deciding that he doesn't deserve
to be given any extra and compensatory help to mitigate the first bad roll
of the dice? Leaving aside simple human compassion it still doesn't make
sound economic dense for a State to abandon children who are already in
difficult situations.


It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few
years back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in
an uproad about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from
the system. I was wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools have
had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the place of
the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

It would certainly be better if the parents were fulfilling their roles but
schools, public and private, are next next line of defence where the welfare
of children are concerned and that is how it should be, in my opinion.



Interested in your thoughts.

Tai wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids into school.

I believe providing good, free education for its children is a primary
responsibility of The State, wherever your particular state happens
to be, and the costs for that should come out of the public purse via
taxes leveled at the highest level. (That is, state and federal, not
neighbourhood.) I also believe parents should have the right to
choose to homeschool or pay for private schooling but that state
funding should only be applied to private schools that meet or exceed
the standards of education provided by the state.


I am also flummoxed with the number of children who
come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about
intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an adequate
breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I mean having
gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the time. I mean
coming to school free of stress from monstorously disfunctional
families.

That is something that varies considerably from community to
community, unfortunately.


In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.


Punish him twice, you mean? Once with the bad luck of being born into
a dysfunctional home and the second time by deciding that he doesn't
deserve to be given any extra and compensatory help to mitigate the
first bad roll of the dice? Leaving aside simple human compassion it
still doesn't make sound economic dense for a State to abandon
children who are already in difficult situations.



You do realize that I am not advocating actually doing this, I think? I do
have a sense that helping children with the issues I present would be better
done in a separate venue than where education takes place. I was trying to
rile up some solutions to the issue. But it seems folks think it is ok the
way it is! That's cool too.


It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few
years back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in
an uproad about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from
the system. I was wrong.

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country. I *do* however feel that the schools have
had to take on more and more and more of what used to be the place of
the parent. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

It would certainly be better if the parents were fulfilling their
roles but schools, public and private, are next next line of defence
where the welfare of children are concerned and that is how it should
be, in my opinion.


Interested in your thoughts.

NL wrote:
Stephanie schrieb:
snip
I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country.

Well, in this country we have the Schulpflicht which means sending you
child to school is not optional, homeschooling/unschooling/etc. is
forbidden.



WOA! Where do you live?

Oh and hey, my apologies to all for that "in this country." Ugly American
and my American-centeric world. Sorry.

On one hand that's a good thing because losing track of a child is
very hard here. If you have a child that's old enough to go to school
(6 and over) you will get a letter informing you about which school
your child is "expected to show up at" and I guess if you don't
register at that school (I'm not sure if we now have a choice, they
changed the laws around that I think, but possibly you can register
you child at any primary school in your district now, anyway..) you
get follow up letters and probably a visit from the Jugendamt (cps)
to inform you about your rights and duties and if you/your child
doesn't go to school you/your child can be forced to do so, if
necessary it'll be picked up by the Police and escorted to school.

On the other hand I think for some children homeschooling or private
tutoring or something along those lines would be better. I think my
son would have benefited from not being forced into an education
system where there are 28 children in one classroom in first grade,
but he's mild special needs (he can not filter sounds and has problems
concentrating on speech, meaning a loud classroom for him means
extreme stress and after a while he's simply unable to listen to the
teacher anymore because there are so many sounds he just can't "hear"
her anymore, of course everyone thinks it's a isciplinary issue and
I'm just a really lax mom) he's changing classrooms again the next
schoolyear which means it's his 6th group in four years, and somehow
that's supposed to make it all better. Or something.

In recent years there have been families leaving germany because they
wanted to homeschool, some went to court before leaving the country,
but it's generally thought of as a good thing that school is
mandatory.
cu
nicole