Law & Order
Mark and Rheta Wallingford
Rheta Wrote<< Bottom line, there were no physical scars on the children.
What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. If that child doesnt talk, there is no
net. I dont like the assumption that going to school means you wont
be abused. Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. If a child is being
mentally abused, as was the case on this show, I dont believe just
going to public school would catch the abuse.
Im not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. While being correct, Im
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.
Rheta Wrote:<<"School shootings are relatively rare". They shouldn't
exist! >>
Sandra wrote: Homeschool killings are relatively rare. Should I just
not mention them?
I think they should be mentioned. I just dont think they should exist.
I guess I should say I *wish* they didnt exist. Call it being naïve
I know people throughout history have killed each other. The line from
the show was that the kid was scared about school shootings and the
psychiatrist was saying that they are relatively rare. His point being
that they are nothing to be scared about. Im scared of them.
Columbine happened right around the time I was pg with my oldest dd.
Rare or not, the thought of children being in a place where there needs
to be armed guards and metal detectors is not a good one. I dont like
it when the media tries to downplay a real threat to make it seem less.
Saying to the kid that he was just being paranoid.
Sandra wrote: If a father were ever to sexually molest his daughter
(and I know it happens;
probably not as rarely as school shootings), wouldn't it be better for
him if
she didn't have to go to school? He runs a risk by her having other
adults
who care about her, who might see changes in her mood or behavior
Its true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just dont
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse. What if the child is one of those kids who is never noticed much
by anyone anyway? Is going to school going to catch the fact that she
is being molested? Maybe, maybe not. How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? Well probably never know. I think that neighbors and others
are also an asset. If you know that someone has a child and that child
is never seen outside the home and acts strange when you do see them I
think that would be noticed.
Abusers are going to abuse. Keeping the child home under the guise of
homeschooling is something that happens, Im sure. Im not sure what
the answer is, however. I dont believe that more regulation of
homeschooling is the answer, though. School or Homeschool, children are
always, as sick as it makes me, targets. How do you fix the problem of
abuse itself?
Rheta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>Sandra wrote: I don't know what you meant by this.
What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. If that child doesnt talk, there is no
net. I dont like the assumption that going to school means you wont
be abused. Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. If a child is being
mentally abused, as was the case on this show, I dont believe just
going to public school would catch the abuse.
Im not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. While being correct, Im
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.
Rheta Wrote:<<"School shootings are relatively rare". They shouldn't
exist! >>
Sandra wrote: Homeschool killings are relatively rare. Should I just
not mention them?
I think they should be mentioned. I just dont think they should exist.
I guess I should say I *wish* they didnt exist. Call it being naïve
I know people throughout history have killed each other. The line from
the show was that the kid was scared about school shootings and the
psychiatrist was saying that they are relatively rare. His point being
that they are nothing to be scared about. Im scared of them.
Columbine happened right around the time I was pg with my oldest dd.
Rare or not, the thought of children being in a place where there needs
to be armed guards and metal detectors is not a good one. I dont like
it when the media tries to downplay a real threat to make it seem less.
Saying to the kid that he was just being paranoid.
Sandra wrote: If a father were ever to sexually molest his daughter
(and I know it happens;
probably not as rarely as school shootings), wouldn't it be better for
him if
she didn't have to go to school? He runs a risk by her having other
adults
who care about her, who might see changes in her mood or behavior
Its true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just dont
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse. What if the child is one of those kids who is never noticed much
by anyone anyway? Is going to school going to catch the fact that she
is being molested? Maybe, maybe not. How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? Well probably never know. I think that neighbors and others
are also an asset. If you know that someone has a child and that child
is never seen outside the home and acts strange when you do see them I
think that would be noticed.
Abusers are going to abuse. Keeping the child home under the guise of
homeschooling is something that happens, Im sure. Im not sure what
the answer is, however. I dont believe that more regulation of
homeschooling is the answer, though. School or Homeschool, children are
always, as sick as it makes me, targets. How do you fix the problem of
abuse itself?
Rheta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/19/2004 7:49:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wallingford@... writes:
<<School or Homeschool, children are
always, as sick as it makes me, targets. How do you fix the problem of
abuse itself?>>
And don't forget that students can be abused at school. Emotional abuse by
other students and teachers is especially prevalent. When I went to school, I
had a fifth grade teacher who paddled students, and physical punishment was
not allowed in school in NY where I lived. I'm sure other teachers and some
parents were aware that this was against the law, but nothing was done about it.
The teacher retired the next year.
--Jacqueline
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wallingford@... writes:
<<School or Homeschool, children are
always, as sick as it makes me, targets. How do you fix the problem of
abuse itself?>>
And don't forget that students can be abused at school. Emotional abuse by
other students and teachers is especially prevalent. When I went to school, I
had a fifth grade teacher who paddled students, and physical punishment was
not allowed in school in NY where I lived. I'm sure other teachers and some
parents were aware that this was against the law, but nothing was done about it.
The teacher retired the next year.
--Jacqueline
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
J. Stauffer
<<I don't like
it when the media tries to downplay a real threat to make it seem less.
Saying to the kid that he was just being paranoid. >>>
If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school, you
are being paranoid.
The most dangerous place a child will ever be is in their car. Most of us
place our kids in cars every day without even thinking about it.
Being shot by some nut seems much scarier than a car wreck but it is also
much, much less likely. So unless people are willing to discuss not
allowing their kids in cars because of the danger as a pragmatic idea, I
think talking about not allowing kids in schools because of the danger is
outside the realm of rationality.
Not aimed at anyone, just my thoughts on the subject.
Julie S.----who doesn't like sensationalism
it when the media tries to downplay a real threat to make it seem less.
Saying to the kid that he was just being paranoid. >>>
If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school, you
are being paranoid.
The most dangerous place a child will ever be is in their car. Most of us
place our kids in cars every day without even thinking about it.
Being shot by some nut seems much scarier than a car wreck but it is also
much, much less likely. So unless people are willing to discuss not
allowing their kids in cars because of the danger as a pragmatic idea, I
think talking about not allowing kids in schools because of the danger is
outside the realm of rationality.
Not aimed at anyone, just my thoughts on the subject.
Julie S.----who doesn't like sensationalism
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark and Rheta Wallingford" <wallingford@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Law & Order
Rheta Wrote<< Bottom line, there were no physical scars on the children.
>>
Sandra wrote: I don't know what you meant by this.
What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. If that child doesn't talk, there is no
net. I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. If a child is being
mentally abused, as was the case on this show, I don't believe just
going to public school would catch the abuse.
I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. While being correct, I'm
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.
Rheta Wrote:<<"School shootings are relatively rare". They shouldn't
exist! >>
Sandra wrote: Homeschool killings are relatively rare. Should I just
not mention them?
I think they should be mentioned. I just don't think they should exist.
I guess I should say I *wish* they didn't exist. Call it being naïve .
I know people throughout history have killed each other. The line from
the show was that the kid was scared about school shootings and the
psychiatrist was saying that they are relatively rare. His point being
that they are nothing to be scared about. I'm scared of them.
Columbine happened right around the time I was pg with my oldest dd.
Rare or not, the thought of children being in a place where there needs
to be armed guards and metal detectors is not a good one. I don't like
it when the media tries to downplay a real threat to make it seem less.
Saying to the kid that he was just being paranoid.
Sandra wrote: If a father were ever to sexually molest his daughter
(and I know it happens;
probably not as rarely as school shootings), wouldn't it be better for
him if
she didn't have to go to school? He runs a risk by her having other
adults
who care about her, who might see changes in her mood or behavior
It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse. What if the child is one of those kids who is never noticed much
by anyone anyway? Is going to school going to catch the fact that she
is being molested? Maybe, maybe not. How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? We'll probably never know. I think that neighbors and others
are also an asset. If you know that someone has a child and that child
is never seen outside the home and acts strange when you do see them . I
think that would be noticed.
Abusers are going to abuse. Keeping the child home under the guise of
homeschooling is something that happens, I'm sure. I'm not sure what
the answer is, however. I don't believe that more regulation of
homeschooling is the answer, though. School or Homeschool, children are
always, as sick as it makes me, targets. How do you fix the problem of
abuse itself?
Rheta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[email protected]
Responses to two different posts on the same topic:
<< If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school, you
are being paranoid. >>
But if you take school shootings as evidence that school is pushing people to
the point that they will snap, it might be worth not sending kids to school
because of the cause, not the result.
And a car accident is usually the result of error.
People who bring a gun to school knew they were going to, knew they did, and
some of them decide on victims and some are just opportunists.
There are gun accidents, and there's Russian roulette. They're not the same
thing. Being in a car to go to a fun place isn't the same as a kid saying "I
don't want to go to school, it's stupid," and the mom saying "You HAVE to go
to school, there's no option," and then that kid being killed in school by
gunshot, hazing, being beat up in a bathroom, overdose of drugs, knife fight
(can't think of other known deaths at school at the moment).
Neither is just a statistical in-the-moment thing. There are reasons and
justifications and some are more reasonable and justifiable than others.
-=-What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. -=-
Bruises are easy to explain away.
The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until the
bruises were gone.
What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a kid if everything's okay
and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word.
-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
Nobody said that.
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.
-=-
I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or not being
cooperative or not being obedient.
-=-While being correct, I'm
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.-=-
If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says that it's
ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children home to
cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who defended
homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
You know it's true but you don't want it said?
How can you have both?
-=-How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of ONE case
has reason to suspect there might be others.
A famous logic example is to consider whether all dogs have four legs. No,
some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need to
know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs. But
having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All dogs except
one have four legs."
<< How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of truth and of
rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can point at
it when we see it.
Sandra
<< If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school, you
are being paranoid. >>
But if you take school shootings as evidence that school is pushing people to
the point that they will snap, it might be worth not sending kids to school
because of the cause, not the result.
And a car accident is usually the result of error.
People who bring a gun to school knew they were going to, knew they did, and
some of them decide on victims and some are just opportunists.
There are gun accidents, and there's Russian roulette. They're not the same
thing. Being in a car to go to a fun place isn't the same as a kid saying "I
don't want to go to school, it's stupid," and the mom saying "You HAVE to go
to school, there's no option," and then that kid being killed in school by
gunshot, hazing, being beat up in a bathroom, overdose of drugs, knife fight
(can't think of other known deaths at school at the moment).
Neither is just a statistical in-the-moment thing. There are reasons and
justifications and some are more reasonable and justifiable than others.
-=-What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. -=-
Bruises are easy to explain away.
The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until the
bruises were gone.
What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a kid if everything's okay
and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word.
-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
Nobody said that.
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.
-=-
I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or not being
cooperative or not being obedient.
-=-While being correct, I'm
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.-=-
If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says that it's
ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children home to
cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who defended
homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
You know it's true but you don't want it said?
How can you have both?
-=-How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of ONE case
has reason to suspect there might be others.
A famous logic example is to consider whether all dogs have four legs. No,
some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need to
know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs. But
having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All dogs except
one have four legs."
<< How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of truth and of
rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can point at
it when we see it.
Sandra
J. Stauffer
<<<<<But if you take school shootings as evidence that school is pushing
people to
common thing that I must protect my child from is just odd. Its like the
people that won't fly on planes because of terrorist scares. It is such an
unusual happening that it is irrational to be concerned about it happening
to you (general you).
On the list of "what is gonna get you", school shootings is way, way down
there. We should be much more freaked out about cancer, HIV, car wrecks,
old age for pete's sake, and lets not forget that most people who are
murdered are killed by a family member.
Julie S.---whose gonna sleep with one eye open tonight <grin>
people to
> the point that they will snap, it might be worth not sending kids toschool
> because of the cause, not the result.>>>>>Yes, this makes sense to me. But to talk about the result as this almost
common thing that I must protect my child from is just odd. Its like the
people that won't fly on planes because of terrorist scares. It is such an
unusual happening that it is irrational to be concerned about it happening
to you (general you).
On the list of "what is gonna get you", school shootings is way, way down
there. We should be much more freaked out about cancer, HIV, car wrecks,
old age for pete's sake, and lets not forget that most people who are
murdered are killed by a family member.
Julie S.---whose gonna sleep with one eye open tonight <grin>
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Law & Order
> Responses to two different posts on the same topic:
>
> << If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school,
you
>
> are being paranoid. >>
>
> But if you take school shootings as evidence that school is pushing people
to
> the point that they will snap, it might be worth not sending kids to
school
> because of the cause, not the result.
>
> And a car accident is usually the result of error.
> People who bring a gun to school knew they were going to, knew they did,
and
> some of them decide on victims and some are just opportunists.
>
> There are gun accidents, and there's Russian roulette. They're not the
same
> thing. Being in a car to go to a fun place isn't the same as a kid saying
"I
> don't want to go to school, it's stupid," and the mom saying "You HAVE to
go
> to school, there's no option," and then that kid being killed in school by
> gunshot, hazing, being beat up in a bathroom, overdose of drugs, knife
fight
> (can't think of other known deaths at school at the moment).
>
> Neither is just a statistical in-the-moment thing. There are reasons and
> justifications and some are more reasonable and justifiable than others.
>
> -=-What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
>
> physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
>
> about the abuse to someone. -=-
>
> Bruises are easy to explain away.
> The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until
the
> bruises were gone.
>
> What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a kid if everything's
okay
> and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word.
>
> -=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
>
> be abused. -=-
>
> Nobody said that.
>
> -=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
>
> with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
>
> mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
>
> be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
>
> But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
>
> Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.
>
> -=-
>
> I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
>
> use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
>
> Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or not
being
> cooperative or not being obedient.
>
> -=-While being correct, I'm
>
> not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
>
> safety nets.-=-
>
> If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says that
it's
> ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children home
to
> cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who
defended
> homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.
>
> -=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his
child
>
> go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
>
> want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
>
> allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
>
> abuse.-=-
>
> You know it's true but you don't want it said?
> How can you have both?
>
> -=-How many children who were
>
> molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
>
> truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
>
> We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of ONE
case
> has reason to suspect there might be others.
>
> A famous logic example is to consider whether all dogs have four legs.
No,
> some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need
to
> know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs.
But
> having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All
dogs except
> one have four legs."
>
> << How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
>
> Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of truth and
of
> rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can point
at
> it when we see it.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Robyn Coburn
<<-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
Nobody said that.>>
This may have stemmed from my particular criticism of the show, in which the
school official and the teacher were saying that school provided two needed
safety nets � one being that they would catch abuse, and then the second net
(which speaks to the idea that teachers have to be trained experts) that
only the school staff would be able to discern learning difficulties or
emotional problems that would be missed by home educating parents (not only
abusing parents). This was a point that I expressed badly in my first email
on the topic. The assumption that hs�ers would be less competent than a
teacher and basically unobservant, was equally as annoying as the idea that
all homeschoolers should be at least suspected of some weirdness if not
abusiveness, until proven otherwise. The way the fact that this sad family
were homeschoolers was dramatically revealed, right before the commercial
break, with all the significant looks between the two cops � In any tv or
film narrative, the attitudes are not expressed only in the bare storyline,
but also in the structure and supporting artistry. Eg I liked the way all
the food was arranged with symmetrical precision in very high shelves (so
the youngest couldn�t get to it himself). I noticed that the product
placement people had nothing in this home. That means the food vendors
didn�t like the inference that only loony oddballs avoid preservatives in
their food.
I was watching because dh wanted to for some reason, it�s not one of my
favorite shows. My favorite cop type show is Redcap � BBC America. Cool
English characters and different types of crimes � the redcaps are military
police, in this case on tour of duty in Germany � just layers of stuff in
every episode. New season just started :-)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
be abused. -=-
Nobody said that.>>
This may have stemmed from my particular criticism of the show, in which the
school official and the teacher were saying that school provided two needed
safety nets � one being that they would catch abuse, and then the second net
(which speaks to the idea that teachers have to be trained experts) that
only the school staff would be able to discern learning difficulties or
emotional problems that would be missed by home educating parents (not only
abusing parents). This was a point that I expressed badly in my first email
on the topic. The assumption that hs�ers would be less competent than a
teacher and basically unobservant, was equally as annoying as the idea that
all homeschoolers should be at least suspected of some weirdness if not
abusiveness, until proven otherwise. The way the fact that this sad family
were homeschoolers was dramatically revealed, right before the commercial
break, with all the significant looks between the two cops � In any tv or
film narrative, the attitudes are not expressed only in the bare storyline,
but also in the structure and supporting artistry. Eg I liked the way all
the food was arranged with symmetrical precision in very high shelves (so
the youngest couldn�t get to it himself). I noticed that the product
placement people had nothing in this home. That means the food vendors
didn�t like the inference that only loony oddballs avoid preservatives in
their food.
I was watching because dh wanted to for some reason, it�s not one of my
favorite shows. My favorite cop type show is Redcap � BBC America. Cool
English characters and different types of crimes � the redcaps are military
police, in this case on tour of duty in Germany � just layers of stuff in
every episode. New season just started :-)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
You know it's true but you don't want it said?
How can you have both?
************************************
I know its true too, but I don't agree that increased regulation of homeschoolers is going to solve the problem of abuse.
As has been stated, people have been killing each other (and abusing each other) for centuries. Increasing regulation on homeschoolers is not going to change that even in the homeschooling population. Regulating the many to catch the few is not going to eliminate abuse, or even minimize it.
But it will take away the freedoms of parents who don't abuse their children.
Kristen
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
You know it's true but you don't want it said?
How can you have both?
************************************
I know its true too, but I don't agree that increased regulation of homeschoolers is going to solve the problem of abuse.
As has been stated, people have been killing each other (and abusing each other) for centuries. Increasing regulation on homeschoolers is not going to change that even in the homeschooling population. Regulating the many to catch the few is not going to eliminate abuse, or even minimize it.
But it will take away the freedoms of parents who don't abuse their children.
Kristen
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Law & Order
Responses to two different posts on the same topic:
<< If you are not going to school because of fear of being shot at school, you
are being paranoid. >>
But if you take school shootings as evidence that school is pushing people to
the point that they will snap, it might be worth not sending kids to school
because of the cause, not the result.
And a car accident is usually the result of error.
People who bring a gun to school knew they were going to, knew they did, and
some of them decide on victims and some are just opportunists.
There are gun accidents, and there's Russian roulette. They're not the same
thing. Being in a car to go to a fun place isn't the same as a kid saying "I
don't want to go to school, it's stupid," and the mom saying "You HAVE to go
to school, there's no option," and then that kid being killed in school by
gunshot, hazing, being beat up in a bathroom, overdose of drugs, knife fight
(can't think of other known deaths at school at the moment).
Neither is just a statistical in-the-moment thing. There are reasons and
justifications and some are more reasonable and justifiable than others.
-=-What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. -=-
Bruises are easy to explain away.
The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until the
bruises were gone.
What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a kid if everything's okay
and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word.
-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
Nobody said that.
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.
-=-
I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or not being
cooperative or not being obedient.
-=-While being correct, I'm
not sure how that related to what I was saying about schools being
safety nets.-=-
If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says that it's
ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children home to
cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who defended
homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
You know it's true but you don't want it said?
How can you have both?
-=-How many children who were
molested went through ps and graduated without anyone ever knowing the
truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of ONE case
has reason to suspect there might be others.
A famous logic example is to consider whether all dogs have four legs. No,
some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need to
know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs. But
having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All dogs except
one have four legs."
<< How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of truth and of
rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can point at
it when we see it.
Sandra
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
> And don't forget that students can be abused at school. Emotional abuse byAlso sexual abuse by teachers. School is not always a safe place to be.
>
> other students and teachers is especially prevalent.
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Susan Van Cleave
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Incest families tend to be very closed and enmeshed. They interact less with other people, on average, than other families. When a family is homeschooling it would naturally cause a red flag to go up for anyone who is familiar with this pattern. Anytime a family has a shaming secret, such as abuse or addiction, it is going to be more difficult for the kids when they are cutoff from contact with outsiders.
Susan V
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Incest families tend to be very closed and enmeshed. They interact less with other people, on average, than other families. When a family is homeschooling it would naturally cause a red flag to go up for anyone who is familiar with this pattern. Anytime a family has a shaming secret, such as abuse or addiction, it is going to be more difficult for the kids when they are cutoff from contact with outsiders.
Susan V
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mark and Rheta Wallingford
-=-What I meant by this was that as a safety net, unless a child shows
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. -=-
-=Bruises are easy to explain away.
The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until
the
bruises were gone. What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a
kid if everything's okay
and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word. -=-
IF someone asks or even notices a change in the child - that's my point.
-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
-=-Nobody said that.-=-
This wasn't something said here, this was a direct response to what was
on the show.
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
-=-But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.-=-
I don't think saying not all children are noticed in school is being
extreme. It's what I've seen to be true.
-=-I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some
Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
-=-Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or
not being
cooperative or not being obedient.-=-
-=-While being correct, I'm not sure how that related to what I was
saying about schools being
safety nets.-=-
-=-If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says
that it's
ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children
home to
cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who
defended
homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.-=-
My point was not that people like that didn't exist, just that the tone
of the show (which was what my original post was about and related to)
pushed the idea that hs'ing was done more often than not to hide child
abuse and that ps was a better choice because a child would be noticed
more. The truth is that some children are never noticed and although
kids are abused in hs and ps settings, making all kids go to ps just to
catch those that could possibly be abused is not the answer either.
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his
child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
-=-You know it's true but you don't want it said? How can you have
both?-=-
I am not saying I didn't want it said. I am saying that I don't like
the media pushing the idea that hs'ing itself is done to hide child
abuse by a majority. The point they push is that hs'ers need to be
heavily regulated by the ps system and home visits and that would
prevent these problems (the safety net talked about in the show).
That's like saying if I put a 3-legged dog in a cage, I can keep an eye
on it to make sure nothing happens to it. If you take away the rights of
hs'ers to hs without heavy regulation on the chance that some of those
hs'ers are doing it to hide child abuse, what good does that do for the
others that are fine? Using your example, does taking a child out of
school for a week due to child abuse mean that three other families need
to be investigated because they took their children on extended
vacations? I don't think it's wrong of the media to share the good
stories and bad stories, I think there needs to be a better balance.
Between the news story that ran a few months ago and the Law & Order
show the other night, hs'ers are not getting a balanced showing (for
lack of a better word). I don't want extremes, my desire is balance.
-=-How many children who were molested went through ps and graduated
without anyone ever knowing the truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
-=-We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of
ONE case
has reason to suspect there might be others. A famous logic example is
to consider whether all dogs have four legs. No,
some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need
to
know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs.
But
having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All
dogs except
one have four legs."-=-
My point was the same as yours in that there is never just one isolated
case for anything (abuse or 3 legged dogs). You don't need to know that
child abuse exists to know that people of all walks of life are abusers.
Again, a balance. I don't believe that more restrictions on how we hs
and having in-home visits (an idea I've heard from ps teachers) is the
answer. I do not propose to have all the answers as to how I would like
to balance it out.
<< How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
-=-Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of
truth and of
rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can
point at
it when we see it.-=-
What is the abuse of truth and rational thought that you are pointing
at?
Rheta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
physical signs of abuse (scars or bruises) the child would have to talk
about the abuse to someone. -=-
-=Bruises are easy to explain away.
The parents I'm thinking of just used to keep the kids home a week until
the
bruises were gone. What isn't as easy to explain away is when you ask a
kid if everything's okay
and his eyes fill with tears and he can't say a word. -=-
IF someone asks or even notices a change in the child - that's my point.
-=- I don't like the assumption that going to school means you won't
be abused. -=-
-=-Nobody said that.-=-
This wasn't something said here, this was a direct response to what was
on the show.
-=-Even reasoning that the more people who come into contact
with an abused child will be able to detect the abuse, that does not
mean that a child who shows no physical bruising or scarring will even
be noticed just because he/she goes to school. -=-
-=-But he'll never be noticed at school if he never goes to school.
Taking it to the extreme in either direction isn't helpful.-=-
I don't think saying not all children are noticed in school is being
extreme. It's what I've seen to be true.
-=-I'm not sure what you meant, Sandra, by saying that some
Homeschoolers
use physical punishment related to schoolwork. -=-
-=-Spankings. Swats with rods. For not doing work well or on time or
not being
cooperative or not being obedient.-=-
-=-While being correct, I'm not sure how that related to what I was
saying about schools being
safety nets.-=-
-=-If professional educators know those families exist and ANYone says
that it's
ludicrous to think that any homeschoolers are keeping their children
home to
cover abuse, the educators are more in the right than the person who
defended
homeschooling on general principal in an extreme way.-=-
My point was not that people like that didn't exist, just that the tone
of the show (which was what my original post was about and related to)
pushed the idea that hs'ing was done more often than not to hide child
abuse and that ps was a better choice because a child would be noticed
more. The truth is that some children are never noticed and although
kids are abused in hs and ps settings, making all kids go to ps just to
catch those that could possibly be abused is not the answer either.
-=-It's true that it would be better for the molester not to have his
child
go to school . less of a chance of detection. I get that. I just don't
want the media and the schools saying that by homeschooling we are not
allowing our children the safety net of public schooling catching child
abuse.-=-
-=-You know it's true but you don't want it said? How can you have
both?-=-
I am not saying I didn't want it said. I am saying that I don't like
the media pushing the idea that hs'ing itself is done to hide child
abuse by a majority. The point they push is that hs'ers need to be
heavily regulated by the ps system and home visits and that would
prevent these problems (the safety net talked about in the show).
That's like saying if I put a 3-legged dog in a cage, I can keep an eye
on it to make sure nothing happens to it. If you take away the rights of
hs'ers to hs without heavy regulation on the chance that some of those
hs'ers are doing it to hide child abuse, what good does that do for the
others that are fine? Using your example, does taking a child out of
school for a week due to child abuse mean that three other families need
to be investigated because they took their children on extended
vacations? I don't think it's wrong of the media to share the good
stories and bad stories, I think there needs to be a better balance.
Between the news story that ran a few months ago and the Law & Order
show the other night, hs'ers are not getting a balanced showing (for
lack of a better word). I don't want extremes, my desire is balance.
-=-How many children who were molested went through ps and graduated
without anyone ever knowing the truth? We'll probably never know. -=-
-=-We definitely will never know. But a school employee who knows of
ONE case
has reason to suspect there might be others. A famous logic example is
to consider whether all dogs have four legs. No,
some dogs for one reason or another only have three legs. You only need
to
know of ONE three-legged dog to prove that not all dogs have four legs.
But
having seen one three legged dog, it would be unreasonable to say "All
dogs except
one have four legs."-=-
My point was the same as yours in that there is never just one isolated
case for anything (abuse or 3 legged dogs). You don't need to know that
child abuse exists to know that people of all walks of life are abusers.
Again, a balance. I don't believe that more restrictions on how we hs
and having in-home visits (an idea I've heard from ps teachers) is the
answer. I do not propose to have all the answers as to how I would like
to balance it out.
<< How do you fix the problem of abuse itself?>>
-=-Nobody ever will. My concern in this discussion is the abuse of
truth and of
rational thought. We can't stop that altogether either, but we can
point at
it when we see it.-=-
What is the abuse of truth and rational thought that you are pointing
at?
Rheta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/20/04 10:39:19 PM, wallingford@... writes:
<< I don't think it's wrong of the media to share the good
stories and bad stories, I think there needs to be a better balance. >>
-=-What is the abuse of truth and rational thought that you are pointing
at? -=-
When homeschoolers have a kneejerk reaction and deny any whiff of suggestion
of negatives, it doesn't create better balance.
"The media" isn't doing anything. Individual writers and directors and
actors might be adding their phrase or plot or tension-building glance, but there
is no big committee meeting at "the media" headquarters planning what their
joint presentation will be.
But if there is a person who thinks there are maybe a few questionable
homeschooling families and they are met with a seeming wall of homeschoolers saying
"Get thee behind me, satanic media, there are NO questionable homeschoolers,"
they're likely to think still that some homeschoolers are questionable and
that others are absolutely liars. When people lie, it's assumed they have
something to hide. And "NO, ye demons, there are NO three legged dogs" is a lie.
Anytime there is a call for homeschoolers to get up a collective head of
defensive steam, I'm going to stand on the side and remind people to be honest and
not just succumb to mob mentality.
Balance. Honesty. Integrity. The good stuff.
Sandra
<< I don't think it's wrong of the media to share the good
stories and bad stories, I think there needs to be a better balance. >>
-=-What is the abuse of truth and rational thought that you are pointing
at? -=-
When homeschoolers have a kneejerk reaction and deny any whiff of suggestion
of negatives, it doesn't create better balance.
"The media" isn't doing anything. Individual writers and directors and
actors might be adding their phrase or plot or tension-building glance, but there
is no big committee meeting at "the media" headquarters planning what their
joint presentation will be.
But if there is a person who thinks there are maybe a few questionable
homeschooling families and they are met with a seeming wall of homeschoolers saying
"Get thee behind me, satanic media, there are NO questionable homeschoolers,"
they're likely to think still that some homeschoolers are questionable and
that others are absolutely liars. When people lie, it's assumed they have
something to hide. And "NO, ye demons, there are NO three legged dogs" is a lie.
Anytime there is a call for homeschoolers to get up a collective head of
defensive steam, I'm going to stand on the side and remind people to be honest and
not just succumb to mob mentality.
Balance. Honesty. Integrity. The good stuff.
Sandra
Szalay Family
I always ask the children to keep two rooms in the house presentable in case
someone drops by. Those two rooms are the living room and the kitchen. We
have huge bedrooms so they play in there most of the day. If day doing a
project or craft they do it in the kitchen at the big table, but after they
are done have to clean up.
I hate dirty house too but I give up on having a spotless house when I had
my children and when we added pets to the family.
A have a little note on my entrance door. "Our home is clean enough to
healthy but dirty enough to be happy."
Timea
Mom to Daniel 02-20-91, Christian 02-20-91, Thomas 12-25-97, Michael
07-04-02
in Innisfil (Churchill), Ontario
someone drops by. Those two rooms are the living room and the kitchen. We
have huge bedrooms so they play in there most of the day. If day doing a
project or craft they do it in the kitchen at the big table, but after they
are done have to clean up.
I hate dirty house too but I give up on having a spotless house when I had
my children and when we added pets to the family.
A have a little note on my entrance door. "Our home is clean enough to
healthy but dirty enough to be happy."
Timea
Mom to Daniel 02-20-91, Christian 02-20-91, Thomas 12-25-97, Michael
07-04-02
in Innisfil (Churchill), Ontario
Robyn Coburn
<<"The media" isn't doing anything. Individual writers and directors and
actors might be adding their phrase or plot or tension-building glance, but
there
is no big committee meeting at "the media" headquarters planning what their
joint presentation will be.>>
The committee meeting is before the season when the story editor, producers,
possibly executive producers (although that person may just send a memo with
suggestions), head writer, and probably someone connected with marketing or
ad sales. Here the storylines for the season are decided, and then assigned
to the staff writers. With a show like L&A which tries to stay current �
�ripped from the headlines� � there is more leeway. Once a show is a hit,
the actors get more power too. They might come in with ideas � they�d like
to see their character show more softness, or have a love interest, or get
passionate about some issue that may parallel the actor�s interest. At the
end of the meeting the list of stories and issues gets sent to the legal
department, and research department, so that any problems will be caught
early. One thing research does is ensure that the names used for characters
don�t coincide with any well known individuals. Legal helps them walk the
fine line between being provocative and being sued � or worse losing
advertisers.
I can imagine the story conference about this one. �Let�s do one about those
starved kids in Jersey � Yeah but it needs a twist � what about a kid does
the killing � but it�s the mother�s idea �cos she�s paranoid � Great, keep
working on it and get research on to the homeschooling thing � Yeah this is
a really important issue, now on to the season finale, Fred has some great
opportunities for advertiser tie-ins if we add a character who�s been
abusing diet pills���
BTW people get invited to send in spec scripts to the head writers all the
time. The chances of these being produced are slim. However they are seen
more as writing samples and writers may be hired on to the team. Most places
will not open an unsolicited script (fear of being accused of plagiarism and
sued).
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
actors might be adding their phrase or plot or tension-building glance, but
there
is no big committee meeting at "the media" headquarters planning what their
joint presentation will be.>>
The committee meeting is before the season when the story editor, producers,
possibly executive producers (although that person may just send a memo with
suggestions), head writer, and probably someone connected with marketing or
ad sales. Here the storylines for the season are decided, and then assigned
to the staff writers. With a show like L&A which tries to stay current �
�ripped from the headlines� � there is more leeway. Once a show is a hit,
the actors get more power too. They might come in with ideas � they�d like
to see their character show more softness, or have a love interest, or get
passionate about some issue that may parallel the actor�s interest. At the
end of the meeting the list of stories and issues gets sent to the legal
department, and research department, so that any problems will be caught
early. One thing research does is ensure that the names used for characters
don�t coincide with any well known individuals. Legal helps them walk the
fine line between being provocative and being sued � or worse losing
advertisers.
I can imagine the story conference about this one. �Let�s do one about those
starved kids in Jersey � Yeah but it needs a twist � what about a kid does
the killing � but it�s the mother�s idea �cos she�s paranoid � Great, keep
working on it and get research on to the homeschooling thing � Yeah this is
a really important issue, now on to the season finale, Fred has some great
opportunities for advertiser tie-ins if we add a character who�s been
abusing diet pills���
BTW people get invited to send in spec scripts to the head writers all the
time. The chances of these being produced are slim. However they are seen
more as writing samples and writers may be hired on to the team. Most places
will not open an unsolicited script (fear of being accused of plagiarism and
sued).
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Lenhart
>I can imagine the story conference about this one. "Let's do one aboutthose
>starved kids in Jersey - Yeah but it needs a twist - what about a kid doesRobyn L. Coburn
>the killing - but it's the mother's idea 'cos she's paranoid - Great, keep
>working on it and get research on to the homeschooling thing - Yeah this is
>a really important issue, now on to the season finale, Fred has some great
>opportunities for advertiser tie-ins if we add a character who's been
>abusing diet pills.."
LOL!
Yeah, I can imagine that pretty well. I figure for something like that if
the episode came off with ANYONE sounding like less than a looney tune, we
did pretty well. That means they took the time to talk to SOMEONE who knew
what they were talking about at least a little bit. And listened.
Kelly