The USA Should Move to Institute International Standards on Child Rights
Book Review
James G. Dwyer, The Relationship Rights of Children. Cambridge University Press, 2006, $ 55.00 hardcover.
The United States and Somalia stand as the only two nations in the world that refuse to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that lays down the basic rights and moral standing of children. Nor has the U.S. attempted to adopt the comprehensive legislation passed in many countries, such as England’s The Children Act, which focuses on all matters pertaining to children, with the child’s welfare squarely defining all legal actions.
James Dwyer, in his complexly argued book, The Relationship Rights of Children, believes that, while the United States goes far in protecting parents” rights, it is often at the expense of the welfare of children. He does not offer why the United States leans so far in favor of parents (there are complicated historical and cultural reasons for our “difference”), but instead makes a strong case, based on two centuries of philosophical reasoning, for why children deserve the same moral and legal consideration as adults, even when this consideration steps on the rights of adults.
The debate about children’s rights, when it takes place at all in this country, is usually carried on by legal scholars, with the occasional contribution of social scientists who either study child development or who offer measures of children’s economic and psychological well-being. With Dwyer, we are offered extensive arguments from the philosopher giants, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and others on the value of the moral autonomy of the individual. These philosophers, he admits, focus their arguments on adults, not children. In fact, he notes, John Stuart Mill, in his theory of liberty, specifically states: “[this] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Not so for Dwyer. He makes a compelling case that the same moral rights apply to children.
“Critically then, each of us competent adults has rights of self-determination because it is generally assumed as a moral matter that our interests matter, and matter equally regardless of our status in society. This empirical assumption certainly applies to children as well, and if we are to respect children as equals, we must extend the moral assumption to them also–that is, that their interests matter as much as do adults’ interests in state decision making.”
But how do children know what their interests are, and if they did, how can they assert them? Children are, of course, dependent upon adults to do so for them. But which adults? Here Dwyer argues forcefully that although the law professes to promote “the best interests of children,” in fact it is far more protective of parental rights, and that these rights are often based on a purely biological claim, not any test of parental ability. Dwyer promotes a view of parents as caretakers, not automatic owners of children. He focuses his criticism on laws creating parental rights at birth, and protecting them in events of abuse and neglect after birth. His solution is to drastically re-formulate the law so that, among other requirements, a birth mother must sign a “Parental Vow” promising love and support within two days after birth in order to become a legal parent, but the state may file a petition within seven days to determine in a court proceeding whether the mother is, in fact, unsuitable for one of many reasons, including age, mental incapacity, past conduct of violence against family members, etc. Fathers achieve legal parenthood only if the birth mother consents and they are married. Fathers not married to the mother can only be deemed legal parents if the mother consents and the father petitions the court, passing all the tests of adequate parenting. Non-biological adults may also petition the court within 30 days and their claim will be determined by the court. Following birth, similar strict tests are applied in cases of abuse or neglect of children, allowing the court to more easily terminate parental rights than is now the case.
His view of children’s rights privileges birth mothers but gives little other advantage to biological ties. Unwed fathers still have an obligation to support but not to access unless they have passed all the above tests. Adults who have acted like parents, or have firm attached relationships to children, like stepfathers, have rights over non-involved biological fathers, and a child may have more than two significant adults in his life. From this perspective, attachment trumps biology and a parent must earn the right to become and to continue as a parent.
This concept of parents as caretakers or trustees rather than the owners of children who have independent rights is much more in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and with most European efforts at establishing a code of children’s rights. Some of its obvious consequences would be a move toward no corporal punishment and ultimately the right of children themselves, as they grow older, to petition to “divorce” their parents–the course taken in Europe.
Grounded in a strong tradition of moral philosophy, this child-centered approach adds valuable support to some American legal scholars and others who have been moving more timidly in this direction, most notably with a new revision of the influential American Law Institutes” treatise on Parent and Child where “de facto” parents (such as stepparents) without biological ties would be given greater access rights.
A limitation of this book is that Dwyer limits himself to the “protective” rights of young children and does not wander into the thornier “choice rights” of maturing adolescents. For instance: does the protective state have the right to insist on drug testing for children before they may join any after-school activity, as the Supreme Court recently ruled? or, are the rights of children served when in one courtroom a 13-year-old who steals a candy bar may be given a lawyer and nearly all the due process rights of a criminal defendant while down the hall a 13-year-old whose physical custody is being determined following divorce may have no voice or representation at all? Perhaps this philosopher will tackle maturing children’s rights in his next book.
Mary Ann Mason
University of California, Berkeley
Related articles by Zemanta
- UN urges help for 1 billion deprived children (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=f8ded513-9bc2-4360-8407-404ffeef05ad)
Encouraging news on child abuse front
I posted this in the Amazon, Spanking your children should be illegal forum
+++++++++++
We interrupt this forum for some breaking news!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9730224
A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.
An estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse in 2005-06, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993, the study found.
“It’s the first time since we started collecting data about these things that we’ve seen substantial declines over a long period, and that’s tremendously encouraging,” said professor David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, a leading researcher in the field of child abuse.
“It does suggest that the mobilization around this issue is helping and it’s a problem that is amenable to solutions,” he said.
But the study points out that 500,000 children were still abused. That is not acceptable, especially in view of the fact that the abused often turn around and abuse others. We must get ahead of the problem and stop sweeping up after the harm has already occurred. Nonetheless, we see that preventive measures do help and that should give us hope we are moving in the right direction.
What would really help is to develop a national policy that set forth requirements for competent parenting and widespread parental training classes. As a final measure licensing of prospective parents could be the next step. Abolishing all forms of physical punishment and verbal abuse must be instituted. There is never any reason to hit a child or threaten them with violence.
The libertarian and conservative religious ideology that family privacy trumps any efforts by the state to intervene in family matters until damage has occured has to go. Parents are not free to do as they please to their children.
Related articles by Zemanta
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=87d7d401-f1ef-4246-a645-fff7d5aad20b)
The best interests of the child — UNCRC
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module5.htm
[quote]
Best interests of the child
A major aspect of the philosophy behind the UNCRC is that children are equals; as human beings they have the same inherent value as grown-ups. The affirmation of the right to play underlines the fact that childhood is valuable in itself and these years are not merely a training period for the adult life. The idea that children have equal value may sound like a truism, but it is, in fact, a radical thought—one not at all respected today.
Children—especially when very young—are vulnerable and need special support to be able to enjoy their rights in full. How can children be granted equal value and at the same time the necessary protection? Part of the answer lies in the principle of “the best interests of the child,” formulated in article 3(1):
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Whenever official decisions are taken which affect children, their interests should be seen as important. The interests of the parents or the state should not be the all-important consideration. This is indeed one of the major messages of the CRC.
Views of the child
This first principle, by its very nature, gives importance to another principle, one about respecting the views of the child. In order to know what actually is in the interests of the child, it is only logical to listen to him or her. The principle is formulated in article 12(1):
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child be given due weight, in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
This has been termed by some commentators the “participation” element in the CRC. The idea is that the child has the right to be heard and have his/her ideas taken seriously. The reports by states parties so far have been vague on this article; some have stated that children of, for instance, twelve years of age have the right to reject an adoption or a change of name or nationality. Few have displayed a comprehensive approach to this principle which affects life in schools and families—and in politics.
[/quote]
It is easy to see why despotic parents hate the foundational premises of the UN CRC. They wish to treat their children as property, as clay they can mold to suit their whims and prejudices. You do not treat an equal in this manner. You certainly have no inherent right to punish an equal physically because they do not bow down to you.
Framing the rights of children as elaborated in the UN CRC has profound implications for how parents role in the development of their children is envisioned. Tyrannical patriarchs are out. Thoughtful respectful guardians are in.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Canada and the Best Interests of Children (newswire.ca)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=a93899b7-ffbd-4f0b-ac0a-ae1bb6f2ebed)
Online resources compiled by James C. Talbot
- Image via Wikipedia
For any parent’s who would wish to explore what has become a world wide consensus against spanking, you will find below a number of online resources from my book.
The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide
Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association with Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s29&SEARCHID=1041949468944_779&TITLEABSTRACT=Slapping+and+spanking+in+Childhood&JOURNALCODE=&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=1&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=161%2F7%2F805
Research on Corporal Punishment – Available Online
http://stoptherod.net/research.htm
Corporal Punishment – Empirical Studies
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm
The Research and Informed Expert Opinion
http://nospank.net./resrch.htm
Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association With Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in a General Population
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805
States Should Ban Violence Against Children – United Nations Study
http://nospank.net/n-q33r.htm
Correlation Between High Rates of Corporal Punishment in Public Schools andSocial Pathologies
http://nospank.net./correlationstudy.htm
Experts – Spanking Harms Children, Especially Girls
http://nospank.net./women.htm
Spanking and Mental Illness
http://nospank.net./falk2.htm
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/sxdangers.html
Spanking Can Be Sexual Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/101.htm
panking, Pain and Pleasure
http://www.nospank.net/r-ali.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics’ Position on Physical Punishment
http://nospank.net./aap4-c.htm
ChildAdvocate.org – Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
What Does Research Say About the Effects of Physical Punishment on Children?
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266a.html
The Neurobiology of Child Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/teicher2.htm
It’s Time to Change `The American Way of Discipline’ – Arthur Cherry, M.D.,FAAP,
http://nospank.net./aap5-a.htm
Why Do We Need Full Legal Reform to End All Corporal Punishment?
http://nospank.net./endallcp.htm
Physical Punishment of Children
http://nospank.net./shrc.htm
Corporal Punishment in Schools
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b106/2/343
Lowest Achieving Ohio Schools Quickest With The Paddle-Rights
http://nospank.net./ohio3.htm
Dr. Spock on Parenting (1989)–Excerpts
http://nospank.net./spock2.htm
The Center for Effective Discipline, Columbus, Ohio
http://www.stophitting.com/
End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.neverhitachild.org/
Corporal Punishment and Trauma – Building Better Health
http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/corporal
Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm
Giving Guidance on Child Discipline
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7230/261
The Belt, Adrenalin, and Delinquency
http://www.nospank.net/welsh5.htm
Abused Tots Take On Abusive Parents Ways
http://www.nospank.net/tots.htm
Impact of Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute of San Francisco
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/parentin.htm
Adult Consequences of Childhood Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/adult.htm
Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html
Guidance for Effective Discipline
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b101/4/723
Spanking Strikes Out
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36133.html
Corporal Punishment
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/corporal_punishment.html
Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm
Physical Punishment and The Development of Aggressive and Violent Behavior – A Review, by Elizabeth Kandel
http://www.neverhitachild.org/areview.html
Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm
Hitting People Is Wrong – and Children Are People Too
http://www.neverhitachild.org/hitting1.html
The Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth – Highlights from the Latest Youth Update
http://www.iay.org/youth_update/abstracts_latest_issue.html#Maltreatment%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20C
Why Do We Hurt Our Children – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/james_kimmel/punishment.html
Alternatives to Spanking
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36135.html
Some Thoughts On Spanking – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/don_fisher.html
Raising Kind Children
http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/humanrel/gh6126.htm
Why You Should Say `No’ to Corporal Punishment – It Doesn’t Work
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-96/05-2796/c02li081.htm
Spanking – An Idea Whose Time Has Gone
http://nospank.net/gurza.htm
Faut-il interdire la fessée? / Should Spanking Be Prohibited?
http://www.nospank.net/n-j48.htm
The Swedish Example
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/crowell-article.html
German Parliament Bans Use Of Corporal Punishment In
Child Rearing
http://nospank.net/deut.htm
Denmark Bans Spanking
http://www.neverhitachild.org/denmark1.html
Israeli High Court on Spanking
http://nospank.net/n-g02.htm
Jerusalem Supreme Court: Corporal Punishment of Children
Is Indefensible
http://nospank.net/israel.htm
Greece Outlaws Corporal Punishment in the Home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm
South Africa’s Constitutional Court Says `NO’ to Spankers in
Christian Schools
http://nospank.net/sacourt2.htm
Spanking of Toddlers to Be a Crime in Scotland
http://www.nospank.net/n-i48.htm
Bangladesh Observes Child Rights Week
http://www.nospank.net/n-f33.htm
BBC News – UK – Smacking Children `Does Not Work’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/252607.stm
Delhi School Kids To Be Spared The Rod
http://nospank.net/delhi.htm
Punjab Bans Corporal Punishment
http://nospank.net/pkstn.htm
No Smacking Rule For Children Under Three
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2001/09/161
Greece outlaws corporal punishment in the home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm
End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
Correlation Between Corporal Punishment and Social Pathologies
http://nospank.net/guthrow.htm
Paddling States v. Non-Paddling States: A National Academic Comparison
http://nospank.net/charles5.htm
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Call For Government Rethink On Hitting Children Following United Nations Report
http://nospank.net/n-j58.htm
Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking): Introduction and Legality
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin2.htm
Kenyan Children Suffer Frequent Beatings by Teachers
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/09/kenya1654.htm
Dept of Health Issues Guidelines to British Parents on How to Smack TheirChildren
http://wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/smck-f02.shtml
Project NoSpank
http://nospank.net./main.htm
Spanking Articles at findarticles.com
http://findarticles.com/
End All Corporal Punishment of Children – States With Full Abolition
http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html
The Center for Effective Discipline
http://www.stophitting.com/
Parenting Tips
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/368.html
Spanking – Ages 6 to 12 | ahealthyme.com
http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/spanking6to12
Family Resource Library Resources
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
A Good Whuppin’? Many Who Survived Childhood Spankings Now Endorse Them, Renewing Debate Over a Peculiar Institution.
http://www.childprotectionreform.org/policy/spanking/washpoststory.htm
Our Children Don’t Deserve to Be Beaten
http://nospank.net/lombardo.htm
Monadnock Area Psychotherapy and Spirituality Services
http://www.mapsnh.org/spanking.html
Family Issue Facts, Spanking, Bulletin 4357
http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/4357.htm
United Nations Committee on Rights of Child
http://www.nospank.net/uncrc.htm
Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
How Children Really React to Control
http://nospank.net/gordon.htm
Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm
Selected Print Medial Coverage
http://www.nospank.net/clips.htm
Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm
Domestic Abuse Organizational and Employee Impact
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Mickles721.html
Plain Talk About Spanking
http://nospank.net/pt2007.htm
This valuable list for advocates who are working to ban violence against children was compiled by James Talbot author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide .
Related articles by Zemanta
- Does Spanking Cause Lower IQs? (blisstree.com)
- New Zealand Votes On Law Against Smacking (news.sky.com)
- Why Kids Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs (time.com)
- Is America Ready For A “Spanking Ban?” [Spare The Rod] (jezebel.com)
- Being a Patient Parent is a Virtue (momblognetwork.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=63060715-04aa-4853-9d7b-039f8428854d)
Sham homeschools are fostering a radical right wing fifth column
Until the 1980s homeschooling was a benign activity that affected very few children. After homeschooling became dominated by right wing Christian theocrats, millions of vulnerable children (estimates are suspect because of poor reporting requirements) became virtual prisoners in their own homes, pawns in a scheme to overthrow the United States Government and replace it with a theocracy. The theocrats scheme includes lobbying state legislatures, pressing free exercise of religion cases in the courts and collusion with extreme right wing Republican officials. The result is an almost total lack of oversight by government officials. It will require dedication for the new administration to undo the Bush administration handiwork.
Legitimate homeschools are in league with the sham homeschools because they also want to prohibit any kind of oversight or control. Although the legitimate people have a small public voice, the radical right are loaded with resources and lobbyists.
The Supreme Court gave parents the right to teach children the tenets and the practices of their faith back in 1944. (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 164 (1944). The Prince decision, together with the Yoder vs Wisconsin decision inspired theocratic zealots to create a rebellious strain of home schooling. Lead by radicals, this movement is creating a virtual fifth column of ignorant children raised to hate democracy and to revile and distrust their government institutions. In this way, the theocrats are systematically grooming innocent children through a staged process involving homeschools, a project called Generation Joshua and the Patrick Henry College. Their aim is to quietly infiltrate, hamper, frustrate and then dismantle the government of the United States and establish a theocracy according to Dominionist theology. The theocrats plan seems to be working because the Bush administration opened the doors of government to Patrick Henry College graduates while the general public has taken little notice. But then, the devious theocrats are anything but honest and above board. They are like cockroaches, termites and other vermin that hide out of sight. They will not advocate a public position because they know they cannot win an honest public debate.
No one contemplated the political power extreme right wing Christians would usurp in the latter decades of the 20st century. Nor, how they would first systematically attack the public school system and then in frustration, how they would begin to withdraw their children from public schools in astonishing numbers. Able to mobilize thousands of parents to swamp legislatures with denial of service calls and emails, they steam rolled their agenda of removing truancy laws across the country. There was little or no opposition from the federal or state governments, who depend upon reliable telephone and Internet connections to operate. Denial of service attacks combined with bare knuckle political threats became weapons of choice and are still used today. HSLDA even brags about their success in hampering the functioning of government.
With sequestered children constantly supervised by zealous despotic parents, the indoctrination of a backward debauched religion can take place 24 hours a day seven days a week. Out of sight, the indoctrination goes unnoticed. The unfortunate children’s parents rigorously shield them from civilian authority, and they are not allowed to associate with anyone that has not been pre-approved. Parents heavily monitor and restrict radio, television, movies, the Internet and live entertainment events. When legal problems threaten, parents use the threadbare guise of sacrosanct religious liberty and call on well heeled advocacy groups like Michael Farris’s Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Focus on the Family, The Pacific Justice Institute, and The Eagle Forum to name just a few far right heavily funded special interest groups of dubious character.
In these families, there will be no nonsense about Title 9 gender equality, or sex education or tolerance of other’s beliefs; parents are convinced they alone have the truth and all outsiders are Satan’s spawn that are going to hell. There is no effort to teach the children how to reason or make moral judgments based on logic; morality lessons consist of picked over biblical dogma.
This trend has been in place for nearly 20 years and has spawned a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, legal assistance groups, and purveyors of “approved” curriculum materials. Many curriculum materials advertise that they teach subjects in a “godly” way. Believe it or not there are even teaching materials that extend this pedagogy to mathematics!
Dr. Rob Reich (Professor of Political Science and Ethics at Stanford University ) explains what he considers is the major problem in terms of parents deliberately frustrating the development of autonomy in their children:
The problem with homeschooling and parental authority over education arises not out of conflicts over whether children should become independent adults. Few people wish to defend the authority of parents who plainly care too little. The problem arises over parents who, as it were, care too much in seeking to prevent the development of autonomy in their children. I mean to suggest that parents who wish to control the socialization of their children so completely as to instill inerrant beliefs in their own world view or unquestioning obedience to their own or others’ authority are motivated often by a fervent care for, not neglect of their children. Even when defined minimally, some parents may object to the idea that their children should receive an education that promotes their critical thinking and capacities for reflection on their own and other’s ends. Being minimally autonomous, I claimed, was in the interest of the child for personal and civic reasons. The fact that autonomy is necessary for citizenship makes education for autonomy an interest of the state as well. Thus, when parents reject the facilitation of autonomy in their children, they find themselves in conflict with both the interests of the child and of the state.
A measure of just how thoroughly the theocrats took control of the US Department of Education can be gained by the comments made by Jack Klenk, Director of the Office of Non Public Education at the U.S. Department of Education at a recent meeting sponsored by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA a vociferous foe of homeschool oversight ) and featuring eight congressional representatives . Here is part of the HSLDA report on their web site:
Mr. Klenk has served in the Department for over 20 years, and he talked about how he has seen homeschooling start and grow through the years. He also acknowledged that the Department of Education has heard the homeschool community’s message that the “federal government must leave homeschoolers alone,” and will honor that message. He closed by sharing his and the current administration’s belief that “homeschooling is good for children, good for families, and good for society.
Have we no right to expect impartial judgments emanating from such a high government official? Mr Klenk has hopefully departed to other pursuits by this time, if he has not been fired.
The corrupt Bush administration and his allied theocrats were determined to surreptitiously undermine and drag down the government of the United States. Accordingly, it should be obvious to Americans that the Obama administration must act decisively to regulate homeschools on an urgent basis.
Professor Rob Reich proposed the following provisional framework some years ago:
A PROVISIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR HOME SCHOOLING
Recall that the purpose of these regulations is to help ensure that the state’s interest in providing a civic education for children is met, and to protect the independent interest of the child in developing into a free or autonomous adult. … I propose three minimal regulations. The results of the democratic process might yield additional regulations, which would not necessarily be inconsistent with my views, but these seem to me the bare minimum, as follows:1. All parents who home school must register with a public official. The state needs to be able to distinguish between truants and home-schooled students, and it needs a record that specific children are being home schooled so that its other regulations can be enforced.
2. Parents must demonstrate to educational officials that their homeschool curriculum meets some minimal standard. The minimal standard will include academic benchmarks as well as an assurance that children are exposed to and engaged with ideas, values, and beliefs that are different from those of the parents. For instance, every home-school curriculum should include information about a variety of religious traditions (I believe this should be the case, as well, for public and private schools.) Parents are free to teach their children that their own religious faith is the truth, but they cannot shield children from the knowledge that other people have different convictions and that these people are, from the standpoint of citizenship, their equals.
3. Parents must permit their children to be tested periodically on some kind of basic skills exam. Should home-schooled children repeatedly fail to make progress on this exam, relative to their public or private school peers, then a case could be made to compel school attendance. Label this educational harm. (The same kind of educational harm surely exists in some public schools, of course. And this is one reason that I believe parents should have the authority to hold the state accountable for public schools by pulling their children from failing schools and enrolling them elsewhere.) In short, these regulations amount to the following:
• The state registers who is being home schooled.
• The state insists upon a curriculum that meets minimal academic standards and that introduces students to value pluralism.
• The state tests students periodically to ensure that minimal academic progress is being made.Would many home schools be unable to meet these regulations? …. If creating and enforcing regulations would prevent even a few children from suffering educational harm or from receiving an education that stunted or disabled their freedom, the regulations would be worthwhile. Strictly enforced regulations ensure that parents do not wield total and unchecked authority over the education of their children. What is at stake here is not a question of social utility or stability, whether home schooling could threaten democracy. What is at stake is the justice that we owe children, that they receive an education that cultivates their future citizenship, their individual freedom, and that teaches them at least basic academic skills, skills that are necessary for ably exercising both their citizenship and their freedom.”
I wish I could be as sanguine as Rob Reich, because our democracy could clearly be at risk if millions of compromised children continue to go through this warped religious soaked system. In addition, why settle for minimum standards?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1020/cover.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489#docid=5881186192356745364
God’s Next Army
Documentary about Patrick Henry College for homeschooled evangelical children.
http://www.truthout.org/article/christian-reconstructionists-trying-take-dominion-america
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1F86E588-AA4A-43A1-998D-D9BF4FBE4D09} Michael Farris brags about denial of service attack.
About Michael Farris and sham home schools:
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homes
Purge of Professors at Patrick Henry
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/26/83129/0021
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm
Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/
Books
American Fascists, The Christian Right and The War on America, by Chris Hedges
Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg
American Theocracy, The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Philips
http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2047
Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling
Author: Robert Kunzman
Product Code: 3291 ISBN: 978-080703291-6
Copyright Date Ed: 08/01/2009
A compelling look at conservative Christian homeschooling families—and the worldview that could radically alter American political and intellectual life.
Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=6041ae7f-7214-43e3-a801-7aabcf6968c2)
Do we have a right to tell people they are wrong?
Believe it or not, this question was posed to me in a public parenting forum, hosted by Amazon.com. This is how I responded.
Yes, you bet we do. In life we all make choices that effect our communities, unless we live alone on a desert island. Incompetent parents raise children who because of the maltreatment they endured are angry and become dangerous to everybody around them. Not to mention they live stunted lives and never achieve the potential every human has a right to aspire to. Some wind up incarcerated for long periods or are even executed for capital crimes. Would it not make a lot more sense to get ahead of the problem and seek KNOWN strategies of prevention?
Others who suffered abuse seem to live quasi-normal lives, marry, and have children. Which are likely going to also wind up abused and create yet more stunted lives. This fact only recently came to light although children have been maltreated throughout history.
An official estimate of the Department of Health and Human Services, using 2007 child abuse data for the US, puts the cost for that year at around 94 billion dollars. We all pay such costs and besides an ethical obligation to improve life for all our citizens, the fact we must pay such staggering financial costs certainly gives us the right to speak out, especially against willful ignorance. It is vital that we drop the pretensions and speak frankly.
If people are so backward and simple minded that they cannot understand this basic fact, that is unfortunate for them. Trying to protect the feelings of such people, who will not listen to reason, commands far less importance that trying to prevent very real harm to thousands of children.
I will bend over backwards for anyone who lacks knowledge and is sincere in wanting to understand the facts. I realize that many people do not, unfortunately, have a grasp of the scientific method or how statistical analysis operates to reveal truth. (I only managed a C in that course and I had to have a tutor.) The average American is mystified by how a tv or radio works let alone the bell curve of statistics. But if I can manage some understanding, others can if they try.
Note:
From the HHS web site:http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundationf.cfm
Studies have documented the link between abuse and neglect of children and a range of physical, emotional, psychological, and behavioral problems. In addition to the tragic consequences endured by the children who have been maltreated, society pays a high monetary cost for child maltreatment. The costs for child maltreatment include both direct costs (i.e., those associated with the immediate needs of abused and neglected children) and indirect costs (i.e., those associated with the longer term and secondary effects of child maltreatment). Since some maltreatment goes unrecognized and it is difficult to link costs to specific incidents, it is not possible to determine the actual cost of child abuse and neglect. As estimated by Prevent Child Abuse America, the total annual cost of child abuse and neglect in the United States may be as high as $94 billion, as shown in Exhibit 6-1
Hitting or humiliating children is maltreating them. Centuries of this practice does not validate it as legitimate.
Related articles by Zemanta
- James Dobson just has to be responsible for many psycopaths in America (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Congress Pressed to Act to Curb Child-Abuse Deaths (abcnews.go.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5a4ec1fa-6c77-45a3-a600-9043d08ba423)
Parents strongly resist anti-spanking laws
Pro-spanking advocates insist they are against spanking bans because they wish to protect the sanctity of parental discretion. Leave aside the ethics or efficacy of using violence against children as a form of discipline. The issue is that parents must not be hampered in any way as they carry out their parental duties in accordance with their personal judgment. But does their argument withstand careful scrutiny?
Few parents would expect to go into a court and defend themselves against a motor vehicle code violation issued for not complying with a child safety seat ordinance. Laws are in effect all over the country that demand children under certain height and weight specifications ride in child seats and not regular passenger seats. This is because in case of a crash, inflatable air bags can actually kill or maim a small child when they inflate. Passenger car seats are designed for adult bodies, not child bodies and can actually produce injuries to children.
The child safety seat laws are founded on scientific research that predicts what will likely happen to children who are not protected by riding in a seat especially constructed for their safe transportation. Likewise, spanking bans are founded on scientific studies of the harm that will likely happen statistically to a number of children if such bans are not in place. Anti-spanking bans are not based simply on conjecture, but derive their authority based on valid data, rigorously compiled and analyzed.
Libertarian supporters of parental rights don’t seem to object to mandatory child safety seat laws. If their concern is really about government interference in their parental decision making, shouldn’t they therefore resist buying and using expensive child safety seats? What right does the government have to insist parents protect their children from harm by putting them in a car safety seat?
Likewise, many cities and towns have vehicle codes that require children to wear safety helmets when riding on a bike or as a passenger on a motorcycle. Do parents who favor unrestricted control over their decision making, think they would survive a court challenge in case they disregard child safety helmet laws?
When you board an airplane your children must wear a seat belt or you and the child will be removed from the plane. Why do libertarians not object to this intrusion into their parental decision making.
The objection to a spanking ban fails for the same reason that the parental rights defense fails in the instances cited. Although parental rights certainly have a place in the overall scheme of how society raises future generations, child safety deserves a higher priority than noble, abstract, theoretical considerations defending unrestricted parental rights.
Related articles by Zemanta
- I Fought the Law and the Law Won: The Contest, Answered (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Is Your Child Safe in the Car? (susanheim.blogspot.com)
- Protect Your Passengers (cdc.gov)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=1ee522f1-0a7c-4d80-a9c5-aea65d03148c)
New Zealand referendum “tragic”
http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/08/13/swedish-newspaper-nz-referendum-tragic/
August 13, 2009
How does our referendum on smacking look to the world? Not good. Journalist Lotta Hördin wrote this editorial for independent newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad the fifth largest morning paper in Sweden on New Zealand’s “tragic referendum”.
It’s never right to hit children (8th August, 2009 – Helsingborgs Dagblad)Tragic referendum in New Zealand
Raising children using violence should definitely be a thing of the past. Unfortunately this is not the case. This is illustrated by the current referendum in New Zealand. Sweden was the first in the world to illegalize hitting children in 1979. Here (in Sweden) how could anyone think about changing this law? But in New Zealand, who introduced the law in 2007, an organization called Family First gathered enough signatures to force the politicians to carry out a referendum. The referendum is now underway.
The current opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders think a little “smacking” should be allowed. Indicating they want to remove the current law. It was not easy when the law was introduced here (in Sweden). In the 1920’s a law called “Husaga” allowed the master of the house to hit his wife, children and servants. Up until 1958 teachers were allowed to hit students. But in the 1960’s public opinion turned and laid the foundations for the current law.
Since then 23 countries have created a similar law including our Nordic neighbors, and many other European countries. However, in the UK you are still allowed to smack your child and even in USA it is allowed in the home. In some states it is also allowed in the schools.
A law against smacking children doesn’t mean that all the violence stops. That’s illustrated in the statistics. Children get smacked and abused even in Sweden. You need more than a law to change bad behaviour, but from society’s side prohibition is an important signal. It also provides an opportunity to hold the offender accountable to the law. The increase in the reports of child abuse we have seen (in Sweden) can relate to fact that the tolerance levels have been lowered and in some way this is thanks to the law.Children are vulnerable and defenseless to adults, therefore it is important that there are laws to protect them when people in their close environment fail. In New Zealand the opposition to the law argues that parents that give their children a smack on the bum are criminals. But where do you draw the line?
Well of course you draw the line that all violence is illegal otherwise you’re skating on thin ice. Raising children should, above all, be built on good communication and mutual respect. That is not to say that the adult surrenders and lets the child take over and decide everything. But violence large or small should be forbidden. The referendum in New Zealand is to illustrate public opinion on the issue. Leading politicians are planning not to vote and a NO to the law will be a hot potato to handle, but it shouldn’t be. The only right thing, of course, is that New Zealand in the future has a law against smacking children.
Related articles by Zemanta
- NZ votes against child smack ban (news.bbc.co.uk)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=ac3d6be7-7855-4427-8c8a-9ca13904394a)
Hereditary Religion: Cultural Genetics
The End of Hereditary Religion is pleased to publish this article written by David McAfee, a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This is part one of a multi-part treatment on the subject of Hereditary Religion. We look forward to more articles by this talented young writer.
Richard
My interest in the field of Cultural Genetics began two years ago during an interview with a university student for a local magazine. His name was Mike and he was a second-year Theater Major at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I had the chance to speak candidly with Mike and asked him a series of questions regarding his religious preferences and freedoms, his answer to one question in particular would surprise me more than the rest. I asked Mike a very simple question, “Do you consider yourself a religious person?” A 2001 American Religious Identification Survey indicates that 81% of Americans DO associate themselves with a specific religion, so a “Yes” would not have been cause for alarm. Instead, Mike paused for a moment and answered “I’m half Catholic and half Agnostic.” Before I responded, my mind was filled with ideas of what he could have meant, some blend of Catholic intrigue mixed with skepticism perhaps? Upon elaboration I discovered that Mike’s mother was a practicing Catholic and his father was not associated with an organized religion.
When I describe the “genetics” of religion, I am referring to a phenomenon that I came across during the course of my research and, to me, implies the thought of religion as something similar to heritage; it is passed on from generation to generation via the parents. For example, people who have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible or its implications may still choose to classify themselves as Christians on the basis that their parents do so. This phenomenon of our nation’s children inheriting religion is often overlooked because the perpetrator guilty of indoctrination is not a dictator or cult leader, but their own parents. In the course of my research and daily life, it became increasingly apparent that many Americans consider themselves “religious” with extremely limited knowledge of the beliefs and practices of the particular religion simply because of their parents, peers, and popular culture.
When a child is growing up, there is a crucial period in which they begin to ask questions about life and wonder about the origin of existence. In a religious family, these questions are typically answered by creationist ideas in the home, church, or Sunday School. Once these beliefs are instilled in the child, it becomes a part of his or her identity. So much so that, in many cases, the child will grow up and forever identify themselves with that specific religion without question or skepticism. This is not to say that all religious parents pass on their faith to their offspring, but it seems as if it is just as likely as inheriting hair or eye color. For an idea as important as religion, it is a shame that Americans simply take what they are taught from family at face value as opposed to studying, questioning, and learning about multiple religious traditions in order to make an informed decision.
It seems to me that more and more people are treating their religious affiliation as if it were an inherited trait as opposed to an individual right and a decision not to be taken lightly. The momentous event of choosing a religion, or lack of religion, should not be a mindless reflex but a carefully scrutinized moment in life… and the key to this moment is information.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=cf8aae88-7b4e-4ceb-9bc4-608ea74fe34e)
Older Posts »
