I\'m Summer, a mouthy, sarcastic bitch. I\'m passionate about natural birth, long term breastfeeding, and living naturally. I curse too much, love tattoos, and will some day be crushed to death by my book collection. I homeschool, dream of gardening, and swing to the left. 
More Than Just A Brick Wall
Over at Mom Is Teaching, my home school blog, I was the subject of one of the latest rants from an infamous anti-home school bully. He likes to point out that home schooling should be illegal because all home school parents are really just crazy fundies using a cover of home schooling to abuse and brainwash their kids. Of course when you call him on it he back tracks to saying no, of course they all aren’t like that. But there no way to know who is or isn’t so we should jsut assume they all are and make home schooling illegal.
In response I wrote a very sarcasm heavy post about making summer vacation illegal. Because, you know, the parents might be abusing and brainwashing their kids without professional teachers checking on them every day. I had hoped most people would read it and get how absurd it is to assume parents are abusive just because they spend any time with their kids. Sadly I’ve found an article, written by a public school teacher, who might not get the sarcasm of my post. In fact, I’m afraid he might just be for it.
In the New York Times article “Parents Who Don’t Parent” Will Okun, a Chicago school teacher, has decided that parents are just naturally bad for kids and the only place a child should be is in a classroom. No, really, he thinks that.
A recent Chicago Tribune article quotes a number of prominent scientists and educators agreeing that the most significant stage of brain development occurs between birth and age 3. And yet this formative period of a child’s education is left to the discretion, involvement and economic abilities of the parents.
Imagine, children left to the care of their parents. I can almost feel him wrinkling up his nose in disgust at the thought. Oh but don’t worry, it’s only the poor parents that are not qualified to raise their own children. Or, to be more specific, poor black parents from Chicago’s west side. So what can we do to make sure that all children are safely tucked into the arms of the state and away from those dreaded parents who seem to think they have the right to raise their own children? Don’t worry, Okun has a plan!
To address this initial and rarely insurmountable inequity, free education ought to be mandatory at age 1, not age 5.
I say why wait to age 1. Think of that entire first year we are missing out on here! Imagine the trauma these helpless babies are forced to endure at the hands of their poor, uneducated, unqualified parents! We need to get them in a mandatory school withing 5 minutes of birth! But then, what do we do about all those hours kids are at home. With their parents.
Also, the K-8 school year ought be expanded from 180 days to 220 days and the K-8 school day from six hours to eight hours.
Clearly Okun is missing the mark here. I think he’s trying to under sale his idea to get more people to buy it. Don’t hold yourself back Okun, go for the gold! Expand the school year to 365 days and make the day at least 12 hours long. If you can find a way to convert their desks to bed we can hit the full 24.
If you are feeling a little irked at how much he hates parents, don’t worry he hates kids too. Or at least childhood.
It makes little sense for urban students to be dismissed from school at 2:30 in the afternoon. Affluent or informed parents often organize a full slate of after-school activities for their children. However, too many urban children are left to their own devices.
He goes on to say the best kids are the ones who are over scheduled and stressed, being rushed from this activity to another after school on top of spending 2-3 hours doing homework. Pick up your kid and take them straight to karate, then to a drama group, then to a foreign language tutor. Swing by a McDonald’s on your way to soccer and hope they have time to eat it before dance class. You can’t afford to leave a single moment of their time free, imagine the horrors of what could happen if a child were allowed to be *gasp* a child.
Now if you’ve managed to get all worked up over this article, take heart. Even though you shouldn’t be allowed to raise your children, or spend time with them, or let them play, or be a family you are still important. Okun reminds us at the end of the article
Parental involvement is and always will be the key factor in a child’s educational success.
See, parental involvement! Now hand over that infant before that unqualified parenting does more damage.
[tags]parenting, education, schools, kids[/tags]
Oh yes. Of course.
These are the same people who write law after law after law covering “common sense” and “personal choices” because “oh, don’t worry, we know what’s best for you – we’ll handle it.”
Is this guy for real? Scary! I wonder, does he have children himself?
And in the NYTimes, yet! Let’s follow his reasoning – school isn’t working for these low-income students. Actually, school probably doesn’t work well for the upper-income students either, but their parents are picking up the slack with private tutoring and other enrichment activities. Since these options aren’t available to the low-income students, let’s give them more of what isn’t working! Great! And let’s spend a lot of money on making 1-5 year olds go to school (huh?), rather than spending that money to subsidize their parents’ daycare expenses, etc.
I’m disappointed in the Times today, I must say…
He must have had a very sad childhood.
Summer,
I have to agree with his article. Okun is referring to the divide between middle and upperclass students vs. low-income, disadvantaged students. Whether these students come from black or white families, it doesn’t really matter. I think he’s hit the nail on the head.
I send my kids to a public school that, out of all the schools in our well-to-do district, has families from either end of the spectrum: those, like us, who are solidly middle class, and those who are living at or below poverty. As heavily involved as I am in the school and PTA, I see first hand the disadvantage those kids are at who don’t have adequate parental support. Okun is not stating that all parents don’t know how to raise their children or that poor parents don’t know what’s best. Statistically, though, children who come from a financially stable home with parents active in their school life obviously have a greater advantage than those who don’t.
While this is not true in all cases, I think it’s a pretty fair generalization.
I’m all for extending the school year and school day, not because I don’t love my kids and want them home with me, but because I think it would better suit their apt for learning. For a lot of my kids’ friends, school is a safe haven for them, the only place where they may get a hot meal or a room with heat when it’s cold outside, the only place where they have friends or an adult who cares. It’s sad, but it’s also true.
I think you are a great mom to your boys. Unfortunately, not every parent cares about the wellbeing and success of her children as much as you do, so it become the school’s responsibility to step up in place of the parent.
Our school also houses a Head Start program, and it is overflowing with disadvantaged children. I know many parents who rely on the program as a safe, nurturing environment while they try to earn a living. But come 2:30, where do the kids go? To the after school program, which costs too much money for some of these families to afford each month. What then? Even though the Head Start families may get afterschool care for free or reduced cost, it would be a stretch for even our family to be able to afford it for two children.
I was a latchkey kid beginning when I was not much older than my daughter (almost nine). I was a good kid and got into very little trouble. But can you imagine how much mischief one might find in the span of a few hours? Those with money can afford to schedule tons of activities to keep their kids out of trouble, but what about those who can’t afford it? I would MUCH rather have my kids in a school until 5:30 rather than home alone or walking around town.
Why not find a way to help out these disadvantaged students from as early an age as possible? I don’t think it’s a slam on poor families. I think it’s the reality of the situation.
And given the fact he is a public school teacher who, I surmise from his post, teacher low-income black students, I have to think he knows what he’s talking about.
Lis, though I disagree with you that more school would be what is best for these, or any, children I have to really speak up about your last comment. I think it is dangerous to assume that anyone knows what they are talking about based solely on their chosen profession. Just because he happens to teach in a low income public school does not show that he actually understands, or cares to understand, children and/or low income families.
A good example would be the recent AMA attempt at banning home birth. Because they are trained medical professionals in an evidence based profession one could assume that they would look at the evidence and make a decision based on what is medically healthy for women. However, that assumption would be wrong.
I would need more proof that Okun knows what he talking about than him just saying that he knows what he is talking about.
Touché.
The impression that I got upon reading your post, though, is that you feel you are being attacked on a personal level. I didn’t get from his article that he was criticizing parents in general, but rather those parents that, for all intents and purposes, appear not to give a damn about their child’s educational success. There is a reason why he profiled disadvantaged black students, and I feel like he is taking a sympathetic approach to that minority group. Does he know what it’s like to be poor and black? No, but I bet he has a pretty good idea from teaching them day in and day out.
I wonder what would have happened to my son, Jacob, had I not been the advocate I was and pushed, pushed, pushed for academic intervention and testing. He’s lucky that I care to the extent I do. And he’s lucky he comes from a family that has the resources to get him the help he needs and deserves.
But what if he were a poor black child living in a one-parent household? As a parent, I might be more focused on putting food on the table than going to battle with the school district over my son’s social and/or learning disability.
And please don’t forget I am not anti-home school. There have been MANY times I’ve questioned whether or not public school is right for my children, but there is no one-size-fits all solution. There are faults with public school (which I am the first to admit). I think Okun was saying children born into families that don’t give a damn, and it happens, could benefit from earlier intervention. Don’t you agree with that? What about the child born to an unwed teenage mother? Doesn’t someone need to step in and help out that child? And the mother?
Like I said before, there will be exceptions to the generalizations.
I just didn’t take away the same message from his article that you did.
I’m glad you address this very important issue.
I don’t homeschool my kids nor do I feel qualified to do so. In keeping with all of that I also never help them with their homework… you know, failure and all.
The problem is people only place the focus on that one sect. Might be easier to explain
1. Middle class family has good jobs, good insurance, good home has baby. Has the same family Dr. throughout. At the first year check-up the Dr. notices the child might have missed a milestone. Dr ask to follow-up. Dr. suggest a Birth to Three program. Birth to three comes in and notice child’s speech is behind. Speech Therapy comes out to the house works with child. When this child enters kindergarten he is level with all kids his age, no one notices there was delays
2. Young mom has child, lucky to get into clinic to have child checked. Clinic is staffed with many Dr, child sees different Dr. every time. Check heart, weight height child okay, misses slight speech disability. Child starts kindergarten is far behind child his age. Has a lot of catch-up can’t catch-up, acts out set aside “problem child.”
Comparing lower economic class schools with middle class schools is not fair. If ALL schools were a level playing field, if EVERY parent were made aware of programs in their state to help young children. If EVERY parent was granted equal health care to catch possible learning disabilities. Sadly it is not that way. Look beyond the school, the home, and look at society as a whole.
I will send my son to a brick and mortar school and planned to be involved. I was a parent who was blessed to find my sons disability early, he has a chance.
What stings is the generalization, as all parents that home teach are evil child beaters. As an educated man he needs to EDUCATE himself.
FYI here is a stat by state list of early childhood programs. In WI it is Birth to Three. http://www.nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.asp
Lis, I do agree that children born into families that don’t care need intervention. However I think that instead of attacking the parents and taking their children away, this is the good ones that are in poor situations, the money spent on the mandatory school time could be better served by helping the parents and their communities. If they are feeling detached from their children already, how much worse will it be if the children are away from them longer and sooner? How will those children grow to be good parents when living in a culture that takes them from their parents.
You know, you are right about feeling personally attacked. Let me explain a little so I don’t sound so crazy. I live in the middle of Oklahoma, I’m surrounded by Native Americans and reservations, and I am a quarter Cherokee. So when I read mandatory schools with longer hours, longer years, and starting sooner to try to save the children from their parents I immediately go here. So yeah, I do get a bit defensive. LOL
This seems to be basically a debate about whether schools are the appropriate venue to for rescuing kids from the problems in our society. My vote is no – the purpose of schools should not be to rescue kids from those ills. (I don’t really think schools work in terms of education either, but that is another topic altogether).
When we talk about class issues, we are talking about families who are doing all they can to financially survive. Yes, sometimes children in those circumstances don’t get as much care and support as they need. The solution is not to take them away from their parents for the majority of the day/year and house them in an institution. The solution is to directly help those families…
Make it possible for all families to have a parent stay home with their child. If those families had the financial ability to have a parent stay home with their child, without worrying about how they are going to afford food and shelter, I have every faith that they would be able to find it within themselves to support and love their children. How bout putting all the money we’ve been spending on war to support *that* program? Or the money that is being spent on school programs? Money spent on school programs would certainly be better spent on a program to allow children to be with their parents for a majority of time.
I’m glad you’ve taken a stance on this!Coming from a family of teachers, I can attest that it is true educators sometimes refuse to examine the history of public education and its impact and connect that with current day life. The general public has completely absorbed the message that schools are the main place children belong or else they are being somehow wronged. I know why there is that feeling, because in the US a hundred years ago kids who weren’t in schools were often doing serious labor. There have been many positives that have come out of public education. It is/was a truly liberating and equalizing institution. But it has never been without its flaws, like most human endeavors, and to see it as a cure-all that must apply equally to every child as soon as possible in order to prepare them for the world is unrealistic.
I even understand why that is presumed though. I think it has to do with the poor and the not so poor. Middle class people and up feel like kids in an impoverished family have much better chances of getting nutrition, mental stimulation and a future if they are in school. They have an idea that some kids are being ‘homeschooled’ because their parents just don’t want to enforce attendance, or maybe the kids are being put to work. I’m sure this happens in some cases but I think it also is a sign of mistrust for the poor to think that they don’t know how to raise their kids. For me the bottom line is the same as yours, all children are with their parents part of the time, and if abuse exists it has little to do with whether they go to school or not. There is no way to prevent abuse by policing every household. It is something that has to be done by prevention education and good neighbors and friends and family who step up to help people.
I think Will Okun’s heart is in right place but I do not understand his solution. It sounds very Nazi. Though, I am pretty sure the Teacher Unions will love the plan. The problem with public education, I think, is that teachers are taught to walk the union line. Being creative, hard working and having a heart for the children will get you a smile in public but detention in the union.
Of course parents are important–they drop off their kids in the morning at the public indoctrination center. Oh, wait, we can outsource that too. Hmmmm, why DO we keep them around?
Seriously, though, we have to acknowledge that there are some parents–and I hate to use that word to describe them–who really don’t care about their children. I’m not sure that they would be better off in school constantly, but they would certainly do better in life if they were nurtured. That said, I’m not sure the state can change the heart of a neglectful parent. The neglected kids will not necessarily show up to school, the kids who would otherwise be in daycare will show up, and then we can cry about the ones who fall through the cracks and come up with another way.
As to making it possible for one parent to stay home with the kids, I think that is more a function of culture than of money. We believe–we want to believe–that we NEED all the fancy stuff, the bigger house, the newer cars and stuff, stuff, stuff and the monthly storage fees to house it all.
There are many families who make it work so that one parent stays home or the parents alternage work schedules. It can be done. It isn’t always pretty, but it can be done.
On the subject of taking kids all over to lessons–is there no value to spending time with one’s children? I mean, outside the drive-thru lane?
One other point, if I may. Adding in more hours/days to the school schedule is just another money grab. The ongoing mantra is “more money for education.” I might even support that idea if they did away with tenure and introduced ongoing competition for jobs–you keep your job if you are good at it, not because you’ve been here for 63 years and have a garage full of materials you have accumulated over the years. In such a scenario, schools might start to attract the best and the brightest.