Whose Responsibility are Children?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Hmm, so if I wanted to, for instance, keep my kids out of school so that they'll have less options in life and be more likely to stay home and work my farm, should that be a-ok as far as the state is concerned?

I'm not sure what the state would want from your kids---maybe more taxes and votes. To be clear, let's get beyond the state and think in terms of self-governance.

In my opinion, that plan would be fine because it depends on you and your circumstances. Also, people choose on the margin, so it's not like it would be 100% farmwork and 0% education, and education need not be brick-and-mortar. Homeschooling or an education in farming, ecology, etc. could be learned by the child while he works. Even a community could open a school for x-amount of days per week at various hours deemed best by the community itself (self-government). ETc. etc. etc. I'm open to new forms of education and innovation.

Right, but all of this is assuming the parent is enlightened and is only using the child for the minimum amount of farm work to sustain the family or whatever.
There are cases where the parent either doesn't give a shit about the long term prospects of the child, or has a high personal bias against education along the lines of "f*ck those glass wearing intellectuals, working the farm with my hands was good enough for me, it's good enough for my son".
The Roma people in eastern europe seem to have a particular problem with this sort of thinking such that I've personally known kids who were really only allowed to go to school because the government gives a stipend to kids that are in school. All of them eventually stopped, since continuing to higher education was pretty much unheard of and somewhat shunned in their communities.
This in turn has far reaching consequences, such as certain sections of the Roma people being viewed as trouble makers cause they dont' "integrate" with the rest of society, which in turn leads to pretty bad racism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Antiziganism#Contemporary_antiziganism.

(Besides, current methods of education are creating 'skills gaps' for industries among many other mismatches. The cause is predominantly due to previous and ongoing state intervention, but I digress. Just sayin' that even if we want the State to step in and mandate X, we still get problems and perhaps no effective solutions--until the state is relinquished of its duties).

Sure, there are problems. But, I think, allowing a parent the liberty to decide his young kid doesn't need any schooling is basically a breach of that kid's fundamental rights at a time where he is too young to realize that fact. You are seriously altering what that kid might be able to do later in life by giving him such a big handicap. I think this justifies accepting state intervention and the aforementioned related problems (while also trying to solve the problems, obviously)

Chopping off kids' legs? A good call for intervention--but why by the State? Why not by the local community or by something other than a Centralized, National government?

I don't see the State as a worthy and trustworthy enforcer of "fundamental human rights." It's got a real shitty record on that job. :P

Yeah, local community would be the first stop. It's clear there are cases where that doesn't work though (see the Roma). At that point it seems like it's the right time for other organizations to intervene (and I don't have a state fetish, if some other non-profit or whatever can provide the service then cool, I'm just saying that if no one else seems to be handling the situation then it is ultimately the responsibility of the state since they have that whole "monopoly on force" thing going on).

I guess the end is assuring the kid has some minimum standard of living and some minimum chance at success in life. The means are either helping the parents be able to give their child these things, if the parent's are good, or coercing the parents to improve if they're bad (with the removal of the child from the parent's if they're terrible).

Ideally, you'd want to have local communities set up that could handle this organically (i.e. through the friends/neighbours option), but if that is not possible the issue should be escalated to higher levels of government.

Agreed with the underlined, but the "if that is not possible" condition is hardly ever met before the higher levels of government roll in to 'fix' things.

Ok, but then we're arguing about how and when the state should intervene, not about whether it has the right and obligation to intervene.

As far as assuring a minimum standard of living and success in life, I don't find that the State has attained this--but to have mostly hampered people from such standards.

How so?

[thegreekdog]

I didn't read any of the last three pages, but I'm assuming we've moved beyond the point of deciding whether society/community should care about the well-being of children and we're on to some other debate?

/ brought up an interesting notion - that individuals should take responsibility for themselves. There are a number of impediments to that. Two jump to attention. First, pre-majority individuals (i.e. 17 and under) are not permitted to legally take responsibility for their actions (for the most part) and thus parents and/or society are ultimately responsible. Second, individuals who have reached the age of majority increasingly do not have to take responsibility for their actions; witness the 2008/2009 bailouts.

Also... Millennials suck.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Oh and:

Well either that, or you're just BORING!!! Really, it starts with your boring ass avatar.
If you only did what you're doing a little bit better I'd have no problem with it, but the thing is you rarely get to any valid conclusions. You just suck out the energy of any given thread and spit out a poorly constructed essay. You should either get better at your "deconstructions" or skip them all together.

This sounds almost like a compliment. Like you're saying I'm almost good enough to show people why they were thinking the wrong way about the issues (which is a hard thing to do). So, uh, thanks I guess.

Also, stopping a debate is better than continuing a debate where the participants misunderstand each other and only reinforce their wrong conclusions about each other's positions.

[Nobunaga]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

[Woodruff]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

[Nobunaga]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

[Phatscotty]

IMO Parents are primarily responsible. The state is secondary

[john9blue]

it amazes me that people who are so heavily in favor of human rights can say that other people are responsible for children and that children belong to other people.

just because our society arbitrarily decides when people are given certain privileges doesn't mean that they aren't humans with free will beforehand who should be responsible for themselves.

[Lootifer]

I think I understand what you're getting at J9B, but your second line could do with, erm, some clarity around what you mean (assuming you want people to understand what you are saying rather than people just reading your stuff and thinking "well shit, that foo' is way up his own arse in his ivory tower").

[chang50]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Would I be correct in saying you are arguing only one group are responsible for children at any given time?Surely there are degrees of responsibility shared by many groups at work simultaneously for the welfare of children in a civilised society.

[Phatscotty]

I'm gonna use this when my kid gets caught spray painting the school and playing mailbox baseball. "The community can take the responsibility. The city can afford it."

[john9blue]

I think I understand what you're getting at J9B, but your second line could do with, erm, some clarity around what you mean (assuming you want people to understand what you are saying rather than people just reading your stuff and thinking "well shit, that foo' is way up his own arse in his ivory tower").

but i like it up here...

what i mean is that, like anyone else, the kid's actions are the responsibility of the parents only inasmuch as the parents influenced the kid to do them.

[Nobunaga]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Would I be correct in saying you are arguing only one group are responsible for children at any given time?Surely there are degrees of responsibility shared by many groups at work simultaneously for the welfare of children in a civilised society.

Perhaps we are using the term responsibility with different perceived definitions. Of course when a child is at school, teachers have a great deal of responsibility for the children under their tutelage. I would not say this is unnecessary. But ultimately, responsibility for the child's well being - the "big picture", rests only with the parents, who made sure their children went to school, and pay attention to what is happening in that school.

Case in point - The schools my children attend are public, rated "excellent". In spite of this rating, there is a great deal not being taught, and what is being taught is often being taught without sufficient detail or explanation, and too slowly (especially mathematics). It is my responsibility to fill in those gaps. Ultimately that responsibility rests with me. When my kids graduate, should they fail to get into decent schools, I cannot push the blame for that on the school system.

[thegreekdog]

I still haven't read a single post in this thread that argues that children are the primary responsibility of the community, so I don't know what all the figthing is about.

Nobunaga - you should go back and read Egg McMuffin's post (on like page 2).

[Woodruff]

IMO Parents are primarily responsible. The state is secondary

I agree with this completely. No question.

[Woodruff]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Yes, you did. "That responsibility is shared with nobody"...that is exactly the portion of your statement that I am referring to. There is plenty of shared responsibility for children. Certainly, the school systems share some smaller part of responsibility. Neighbors MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility. The parents of close friends MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility.

[Woodruff]

In that education thread that BBS and I started (or whatever), BBS noted distance/internet learning. I liked that idea (which would take the state education part out of it) and had not thought about that. I foresee there being great resistance to distance learning over the internet, mainly from teachers unions.

Certainly, teachers unions (and probably teachers) would fight it, because it would mean less employable teachers.

I do think it's a VERY interesting idea, and probably a good one from the perspective of costs. Really, the only complaints I would have would be in the socialization arena and in the assessment arena.

My personal experience with a very small number of homeschooled children shows me that socialization doesn't HAVE to be a problem, but that it usually IS a problem. At least as how I understand you to mean "distance learning", so your context might change my thoughts on that.

I would also wonder how you could demonstrate that a particular student has learned the material over the internet, given that such things are not difficult to fake.

[thegreekdog]

In that education thread that BBS and I started (or whatever), BBS noted distance/internet learning. I liked that idea (which would take the state education part out of it) and had not thought about that. I foresee there being great resistance to distance learning over the internet, mainly from teachers unions.

Certainly, teachers unions (and probably teachers) would fight it, because it would mean less employable teachers.

I do think it's a VERY interesting idea, and probably a good one from the perspective of costs. Really, the only complaints I would have would be in the socialization arena and in the assessment arena.

My personal experience with a very small number of homeschooled children shows me that socialization doesn't HAVE to be a problem, but that it usually IS a problem. At least as how I understand you to mean "distance learning", so your context might change my thoughts on that.

I would also wonder how you could demonstrate that a particular student has learned the material over the internet, given that such things are not difficult to fake.

I admittedly did not think about the socialization issue and that is a serious one. I have some relatives who are/were homeschooled. I would say only one of them is good from a social perspective; the others are dependent upon their parents for everything and lack social skills. I've also noticed, anecdotally, that students who attend public school (that is diverse - racially, culturally, economically) tend to have better social skills than students who attend private schools (that are not diverse - racially, culturally, economically).

I would think there is a good solution for testing and grades, so I'm not as concerned with that. I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

I demand TGD come up with all solutions to all problems.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

I demand TGD come up with all solutions to all problems.


--Andy

Get in line ex-community manager.

[Woodruff]

I admittedly did not think about the socialization issue and that is a serious one. I have some relatives who are/were homeschooled. I would say only one of them is good from a social perspective; the others are dependent upon their parents for everything and lack social skills.

That's about where my own very small sample-size (about 15 children or so) sits, at about 2 to 13.

I've also noticed, anecdotally, that students who attend public school (that is diverse - racially, culturally, economically) tend to have better social skills than students who attend private schools (that are not diverse - racially, culturally, economically).

Typically, yes. Not always certainly, but it's a far greater majority, certainly.

I would think there is a good solution for testing and grades, so I'm not as concerned with that. I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

There could be. That just occurs to me because of what I know about computer security and how damn smart kids these days are with it (I would guess that I have one or two in my classes this year that could be considered my equal after my 23 years of computer network experience).

[Symmetry]

I taught in schools in Kobe, Japan that had the major orphanage for the area nearby. A lot of kids who lost parents in the earthquake. Some were deeply damaged, all benefited from the social aspect of school, except one kid. I thought he was a dick, till another teacher took me aside and told me he was one of the orphanage kids, and that, as one of the oldest he regularly picked fights with anyone who had an issue with the younger kids from the orphanage.

[john9blue]

I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

I demand TGD come up with all solutions to all problems.


--Andy

at this rate he'll have even more problems than jay-z

[Nobunaga]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Yes, you did. "That responsibility is shared with nobody"...that is exactly the portion of your statement that I am referring to. There is plenty of shared responsibility for children. Certainly, the school systems share some smaller part of responsibility. Neighbors MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility. The parents of close friends MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility.

You are obviously correct, but we're thinking along different lines. Why does my son's school call me after he's decked some kid in the face for being pushed around (I taught him to do that)? Because at the end of the day, my son and his actions are my responsibility.

So my opening was a bit strongly worded. Let me edit:

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody. - - - - (Change to):

Children are the responsibility of their parents. Responsibility for their care and supervision during day-to-day activities must be shared with schools and other family members.

[Symmetry]

No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Yes, you did. "That responsibility is shared with nobody"...that is exactly the portion of your statement that I am referring to. There is plenty of shared responsibility for children. Certainly, the school systems share some smaller part of responsibility. Neighbors MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility. The parents of close friends MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility.

You are obviously correct, but we're thinking along different lines. Why does my son's school call me after he's decked some kid in the face for being pushed around (I taught him to do that)? Because at the end of the day, my son and his actions are my responsibility.

So my opening was a bit strongly worded. Let me edit:

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody. - - - - (Change to):

Children are the responsibility of their parents. Responsibility for their care and supervision during day-to-day activities must be shared with schools and other family members.

And the orphans I mentioned?