Alec Rivers wrote:Julie T wrote:Any objections ... to my putting your queries (nameless) on a Home Ed forum?
Fill yer boots.
Hi, Alec,
edited responses were:
1) could you ask him how he would enforce it?
2)This is a suggestion often made albeit often in jest. The main
problem with it is that it presumes a level of knowledge and
understanding about what it takes to raise children well and what
creates worthy upright members of society.
As a result of studies over the last 60-100 years we think we have
identified key things that need to be present in order for a child to
develop "well", note not to its full potential after all we don't
want people reaching their full potential for evil or degradation or
criminality.
Undoubtedly we have a better understanding of some components but too
often we see these as stand alone attributes and in reality the
interconnected nature of experience means that some seemingly vital
pieces may be missing and yet the resultant adult functions as well
if not better than one who seemingly had all the advantages.
People overcome alcohol and drug addiction and are often better
people afterwards should everyone experience addiction in order to
reach that understanding?
Children who lose a parent when in their early teens often go on to
be high achievers and responsible citizens. Should we kill off a
parent when a child reaches a certain age?
We reached this point in society by leaving people to largely
organize themselves. Until recently in historical terms social groups
were rarely larger than thousands in number now communication trends
and consolidation of social attitudes means millions are supposed to
work towards the same goals and deviation from that path is perceived
as more threatening than difference has ever been.
We evolved without rigid ideas of best practice, always favoring
trial and error and innovation, it has served us well and we risk
undermining our humanity if we prevent diversity in all its forms not
merely the currently socially acceptable ones.
Social engineering has always been attractive because by nature human
evolution is inefficient and haphazard and since the industrial
revolution (if not before) we have been treating people as
commodities whose economic potential should be maximised. Perhaps
this view is correct. But it is all too easy to get from this type of
thinking to Hitler's facism or the Rwandan genocide. Every time that
type of atrocity occurs we cry "never again" and yet still when
confronted with complex problems such as how to ensure positive life
experiences for all and how to parent well we are tempted to fall
back on formulas that aspire to provide answers but refuse to accept
that we don't have enough knowledge to apply a comprehensive "right"
answer, if indeed one exists. I presume you are aware of the question
of allowing a nuclear middle class healthy family to have a child or
a diseased poor woman with loads of kids and no money to have another
child, the answer being that most say yes to the first and no to the
second and the first being Hitlers family the second Beethovens. That
is the problem you face if you want to start licensing potential
parents.
There have always been thousands of dysfunctional families. They are
more noticeable today because natural selection is not allowed to
operate. This does threaten society as we know it but I don't believe
the answer is to legislate and certify.
I do agree there are many people who shouldn't have children in my
opinion but I am not so conceited to think that I would be able to
discern ahead of time exactly who would and wouldn't rise to the
challenge. Nor should one underestimate the value of childhood
adversity in creating adults with more drive and determination and
creativity than many from more acceptable homes.
3) I'd say something alone the lines of - we need to learn to trust SS more -
if a child is being raised by an alcoholic then SS really OUGHT to be
involved. That's what they are there for after all. If a person has
legitimate concerns, then that is the only reasonable course of action
(where offering personal help is out of the question). A properly resourced
and operated SS would be of far wider benefit to society as a whole than
just spying on home educators. That is where money should be invested, IMO.
[by the way, I do not think that SS operate well at the moment, their
priorities are wrong and they are over stretched. But in an ideal society
then "we" ought to re-write the role of SS, back to it's intended purpose,
IMNSHO]
Much better answers than I could have come up with!
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli
, I probably won't surface to answer any questions on this till Wednesday at the earliest!
), and it doesn't mention him taking those.
