Mandatory Schooling?

I recently took an online mandated reporter training through DCFS (https://www.dcfstraining.org/manrep/index.jsp). Something that really struck me in this training was that DCFS considers "Not providing schooling, school supplies, or proper school clothing" to be neglect. In other words, a child not provided with schooling can be removed from their family. This disturbing idea led me to consider whether or not mandatory schooling is really what is best for all children.

There is a movement in the homeschooling community called unschooling (http://www.unschooling.com/). The contention is that children are more creative, better thinkers, and more intelligent if they receive no formal schooling whatsoever. Children will learn on their own at their own natural pace if they are free to do so. Unschoolers maintain that formal schooling is an unnatural experience that actually shuts down the child's drive to learn.

If you think about babies - they learn without being taught directly. They develop. They roll over, sit up, crawl, walk and talk simply due to exploration of their environment. The unschooling movement is based on the belief that this natural development will continue if it is not interrupted by school. The unschooling family provides their children with a rich environment, interesting experiences and the freedom to explore, question and discover.

One prime example of the unschooled mind is Leonardo Davinci. Commonly known as one of the most intelligent, creative, and intellectually advanced people in history - Davinci spent his childhood exploring the wilderness near his home.

The question is - is allowing children to learn in this natural way a form of neglect? Is direct instruction a necessary component of success in life? Are unschooled children being denied the key to intelligence? Or..... are schooled children being denied the freedom to be intelligent?

outside of school factors

I am currently on vacation with my family (spring break is awesome). We are spending the week at starved rock state park in utica IL. http://www.starvedrocklodge.com/. So far, My three year old son, Marko, found a frog, which he tortured, but found very interesting. My six year old son, Milan, saw a great horned owl, and saw a few canyons, met some people, saw one piece of a raccoon tail, and saw a few cabins (his own words). My 11 year old son, Elijah, has seen an owl, a frog, a lot of canyons including a beautiful one called fox canyon. He has seen alot of water and had a lot of fun with his family, as well as a few trees he'd like to identify. (his own words). In addition, my 16 year old son, Steven, while looking cool and wearing sunglasses, climbed up the side of a sandstone formation to walk up to and feel a waterfall.

My question is, could my four sons have experienced these things if the proposed mandatory preschool and longer school days as well as school years had taken effect. I say "no". While we didn't go over phonics, sight words or basic math concepts on our trip - my children experieced and learned things they never could have learned outside of school.

A few weeks ago, in early spring, my kindergarten age son was allowed to play out side at school. However, the children had to stay on the blacktop, and were not allowed to touch the snow. I found this appaling. No wonder American citizens are so disconnected with nature.

Extended school days and school years mean that children spend more time in an institution - away from the natural world.

Granted, not all children have the same experiences that my children have. Still, I contend that children have a right to be exposed to their own families and their own families values.

The american school system is failing. So, what would be the purpose of forcing children to spend additional time in a failing system? Especially when there is so much to be learned outside of the classroom?

Today - I hiked for an hour, just so that I could stand behind a waterfall. I saw a wild turkey, a great blue heron, a great horned owl and a spring peeper. My son carried a worm in his hand for 45 minutes. My four sons climbed into a canyon to see a waterfall, hid in a cave, played in a canyon, and saw an owl in the middle of the day. What classroom can give us that? How can schools and government claim that they have more to offer?

I am currently looking out the window of my cabin. I see a fence, lights, grass, and an expanse of stars. Behind me, my two youngest sons are playing balloon volleyball. The world is at peace. I defy anyone to try and take this away from me. Schools may have some great experiences for my children - but I have something better. I would not be able to allow the schools to try my familuy, and the experiences of my family away from me.

Out-Of-School-Factors

Reading the article "Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success" by David C Berliner (http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential), made me consider more closely the many factors that cause children to do poorly in school, as well as the implications as to the lack of validity of No Child Left Behind when we consider these factors. The National Education Association promotes the ideas of Berliner on their website as well (http://www.nea.org/home/ns/31005.htm).

What Berliner contends in this article is that there are many factors in children's lives that impact their ability to perform well in schools, and many of these factors are beyond the control of the schools. Additionally, many of these factors are government controlled, and are aimed directly at low income families - furthering the achievement gap between low and high income students.

One of these is toxic waste. The five largest landfills in the country are all situated around low-income neighborhoods - raising the exposure of these children to toxins in the environment. This in turn, increases the rate of sickness among these children, which causes them to miss more days of school. Children from middle and upper class communities do not need to contend with this factor in their lives. Why is it that families without money or political power are forced to live in an unhealthy environment, while the haves are kept safe from pollutants?

The same is true of mercury and lead in the environment, as well as pesticides and smog. Children from low income families are not protected from environmental waste that the money making industries create - forcing poorer performance in school. It is not industry or government that get blamed for these unthinkable conditions for children, but the schools for their supposed lack of abiity to teach and raise test scores.

the government is holding schools accountable for conditions that the government themselves created.

The problem becomes compounded due to a lack of quality health insurance and health care for low income families. Not only are the children more prone to sickness due to their environment, they receive mediocre health care - if any health care - so they stay sick longer and are increasingly affected by illness. Still, besides talking about universal healthcare in The United States, nothing is done. Families that cannot afford to move away from landfills cannot likely afford co-pays or doctor's fees every time their children get sick.

A government that claims to be doing what is necessary to improve education needs to address all of the factors that affect student performance, not simply looking at the scores of some test.