Should parents who choose to home-school their children be held accountable for their social ineptitude?

I wasn't going to answer this but since you added on your last bit - I couldn't resist.

Please tell me why socializing with hs kids is any different then socializing with ps kids? You really believe there is a difference? Or does that just mean that hs kids are better behaved and accept each other more. Says something about hs kids doesn't it?

My hs'ed 9th grader just spent the summer working at a camp with a bunch of kids from all over. Only one other person there (a now-20 yr old young man) was hs'ed. The rest were ps kids. He got along with them just fine and in fact now has a ton of new friends to add onto the ones he already has.

He has dealt with bullies - the ones that bully him because he hs's. He isn't locked away in a closet afer all.

Same with my girls. They've had to deal with the neighbourhood bullies who are nasty and mean because we hs. However, because they've been given the chance to mature at home and not be teased constantly by idiots at school, they can stand up for themselves and not let bullies bully them.

On the other hand, you can't tell me that every child that is in the public school system "socializes" perfectly. Some are shy and some are loners. Does that mean their parents and the teachers should be held 'accountable' for their behaviour?

By whos standards are you basing "social ineptitude" on? Yours? The guy next door? So a kid doesn't want to be part of the popular crowd - does that make him/her socially inept?

New Info:

My kids have been in Public School and they are now homeschooled. I was in public school as a kid. Been there done that.

My kids have grown up secure in the knowledge of who they are and what they want. You said you homeschooled your kids/son (sorry can't remember if you have more then one right now) . Maybe, just maybe as you were homeschooling him, he was able to understand who he was BEFORE being bullied and therefore is able to deal with those bullies.

However, kids who aren't homechooled and are bullied and teased from day one don't seem to know who they are and have a tougher time dealing with the "politics" of school and life.

It took me till high school before I was able to stand up for myself. My 9 yr old won't let anyone push her around. I have seen very few 9yr olds around here that are ps'd that stand up for themselves - most head home to mom and get an adult to help them. Yes, sometimes my dd needs me to help her too but more often then not she deals with it herself out on the playground.

My 11 yr old dd is the same way. They are leaders, not followers.

Maybe by homeschooling even a short time, you've instilled those same things into your child.

Yes, some ps kids are leaders. There have to be leaders everywhere for the followers to follow but for the most part, kids follow.

Additional Add on:

I agree with you completely on the 'formative years'. However, why do the experts think the formative years suddenly end when they are supposed to be sent to school? I've never quite understood that one. When I see the way my kids still soak up information and love from me till they are 11-12 years old, somehow I think those formative years last a lot longer then the so-called expers would like you to think. *grin*

Well, I saw the place where you were dared to ask this question. I'm glad however, that you stuck it out and continued to read all the answers and answer back rather then just disappear thinking "Ha, I did it" It has been in interesting discussion.

The obvious bias in your question (social "ineptitude"?) aside, ...

When was the last time you had to deal with a bully intentionally knocking files out of your hands at work? When was the last time one of your colleagues offered you a drink from the flask in their desk or cocaine? When was the last time your co-worker tried to back you into a corner for a sexually-explicit moment or grabbed your behind in the cafeteria? When was the last time your workplace was put in lock-down because of a bomb threat?

In the "real world" where my kids are living, these kinds of things don't happen everyday. In public high schools, well, ... I'm sure you've heard the stories.

So, if we're going to hold homeschool parents accountable, I assume you'd hold public school officials accountable for all the social "misfits" (from juvenile delinquents to shy kids) that graduate from the local high school? It's only fair, right?

If a parent CHOOSES *TO* vaccinate should the parent be held responsible if it kills their child? Many vaccinations are for diseases that are not life threatening if the child has proper medical attention. I believe we do a disservice to our children's' immune systems by not allowing their bodies to fight off these serious but not typically life threatening diseases. A generation before us lived through the mumps, we lived through the chicken pox, and now our kids supposedly can't live through ear infections. Now, I am not a "nut" but I do believe in combining both traditional western and homeopathic medicine. You just need to have your doctor on board with your beliefs and someone who is sympathetic to working with you through normal childhood diseases. If my child gets sick, I will call their ped to get directions on what to watch for during the disease and when to seek further medical advice. The bottom line is that I pay attention to and care for my children as any other vaccinating parent does their child. We each must do what we are comfortable with. As a non-vaccinating parent you must be more aware of your child's "norm" so you can detect disease at it's early stages. Not vaccinating is not a good idea for kids who are going to be in contact with high risk situations in my opinion. Long story short, irresponsible parenting is the only thing that should cause a parent to be held accountable in the event of a death. A vaccinated child could still die from one of those diseases they are vaccinated against because the immunizations do not always work anyway. So, any parent should be held accountable for being negligent and not taking proper care of their child. But, there are also cases where religion prevents the use of western medicine, so you have to be careful there as well. There are also cases where vaccinations are contraindicated by a neurological history in the family. Our family is not questioned about vaccinations because my 2nd child is epileptic. The load on the immune system can be deadly for a child with neuro problems--and sometimes it is hard to tell if your child will have a response until it is too late. ***How will my child infect your child if YOUR child is immunized? If you're worried about getting the disease then YOU get the immunization. If you trust the immunizations then trust them, don't flip flop back and forth. Those vaccination studies are funded by the drug companies themselves. Yes, mercury has been out of the picture for a while supposedly but there are other substances in the immunizations that are not so good.

What about parents who don't necessarily choose to homeschool but are forced into it by circumstances?

Or do you expect the government to build and staff a school in our backyard and in the backyard of every other family up here with school-aged kids? (lol)

Am I socially inept? In your world, maybe; I don't know* but then again I'm pretty sure all the public schoolkids'd find themselves socially inept if they were dumped up here in the middle of my community so guess that makes all things equal.

*I can't say, however, that I've ever felt particularly socially inept in the course of either of my two permanent jobs; any of my three seasonal jobs (incl. helping to run a camp for socially disadvantaged [and publicly educated] city kids - now some of those teens do struggle socially!); and whilst competing in sports at State level.

As a longtime homeschooler I don't think homeschoolers are incapable of socialising with our peers...I think it's far more likely that most of us simply choose not to get involved when things start getting silly and daft.

Oh and one final thought (lol): what about those schools where the entire student body numbers in single figures. I know of at least three schools where the entire student body amounts to ONE child. How are they able to socialise better by virtue of being at school than we are at home as homeschoolers in a family of 9 kids?

My 8th grader doesn't have "social ineptitude", at least not according to the stream of friends he has coming to our door everyday after their school before they go home. I work his school schedule around the times he can hang out with his buds so he knows I value his friendships. He also knows I have low tolerance for disrespect for adults such as myself. I arranged for him to work for a family friend several times a week in a mechanics shop so he's around other adults besides me. One of the reasons I kept him out of the local school is because of the "social ineptitude" of the middle school here. Probably he would go to a different school if there was one that was better. Obviously the kids themselves hold their own parents accountable if they don't have enough opportunities to socialize. Schools do not guarantee a healthy social atmosphere. Some of the teachers are social morons at our local school.

Only if parents who send their children to public school are held accountable for STD's, bullying, teen pregnancy, drug problems, adolescent crime, underage drinking, tobacco usage, vandalism, gang violence . . . do I really need to go on? These are social problems that are epidemic in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Does that define the social grace you are talking about? I don't know if you remember, but Columbine is a public school!

Home Schoolers determine the degree to which they act like other kids, but in a lot of cases they just see the stupid, shallow, self-destructive group - acceptance - oriented behavior that comes from pure peer group socialization and they don't WANT to be a part of it.

As for social ineptitude, when you are an upperclassmen at a University, have a look at the freshmen and see if you think they are teeming with social grace.

So to answer your question, a double standard is not a good idea. If you want to hold parents responsible for their children's social actions you have to hold ALL parents responsible. NOT JUST THE ONES YOU DON'T LIKE

As phrased, the question is difficult to answer. I'm not sure, for example, whether 'their' applied back to the subject (parents) or to the object (children). I'm not sure what court hears issues of defective parenting, whether you're suggesting that actual legal action is necessary ( "produces nerds" added to the child neglect standards, for example ) or whether it's more of a religious "held accountable" (like "before St. Peter you're brought to account").

None of the state standards where I live refer to 'social eptitude' as a criteria for graduation, or for any intermediate stage. Interesting idea, though. If the goals of our educational system included producing good citizens and kind people they would probably be more attractive places, in general, and it wouldn't be necessary to compel people to attend.

Possible restatements of the original question include: "Should children have a legal process for evaluating their parents' skills, and recourse for inadequate outcomes?" or "Should all aspects of our education be designed to produce better people?" " Does the government have a right overriding traditional interpretations of civil liberties to monitor the social (or alternatively, parenting) skills of its citizens?"

Without a clear statement of the question it would be difficult to design any test for evaluating answers.

Should people who ask stupid questions like this be held accountable for their ignorance?

I just spent the weekend with my homeschooled nieces and nephew. Although they are teenagers they actually can sit and have a real conversation with adults. They respond when you ask them a question. They look people in the eye when talking with them. They use good grammar and speak in complete sentences. They were very attentive to and patient with younger kids. They didn't sit around playing video games and listening to their I-pods. They interacted with people, of all ages. I've seen a lot of immature, inarticulate public schooled teens. Who should we blame for their social ineptitude?

only if the parents whose kids are in public schools should be held responsible for their social ineptitude AND academic ineptitude.

Sorry, I only know one homeschooled child who is socially inept and that is not a result of her being homeschooled- she would have the same problems in public or any other school.

Most homeschoolers I know are much more mature and able in social situations than public schooled kids- not that all public schooled kids are inept but homeschooled kids have them beat when it comes to handling themselves in a confident and mature manner in any social situation.

Judging an individual's "social ineptitude" seems a bit subjective to me.

Also there appear to be some serious holes in your logic...

Perhaps you have met a home educated individual, or even ten, and you have judged them to be "socially inept." You therefore have come to a conclusion, faulty though it may be, that this ineptitude stems from the home education.

Now perhaps I have met a few people in my 30-odd years who strike me as lacking in a number of social graces. Perhaps these people just happen to have been educated in a public school.

Should I then present a statement hidden in a question, accusing the public schools of ruining the social potential of it's students? Or perhaps I should pose that same querry, only pointing the finger of accusation at the parents for sending said children to be ruined at said schools. Perhaps even go farther to accuse society at large for creating the public school system and requiring parents to bus in their children for ruination?

All of those hasty generalizations sound a bit contrived. Ridiculous, even. The same could be said for someone's subjective assumption that "social ineptitudes" (real or imagined) are brought about by homeschooling.

The ability to relate to other individuals in society is a complex behavior - learned and inherited, shaped by a lifetime of circumstances, the vast majority of which are beyond the control of the individual and even beyond the control of a homeschooling parent.

So. I suppose that I would have to say if you can't let go of such a fallacious perception, then if you will hold homeschooing families accountable for "socially inept" children, you will also need to hold the parents & education system accountable for their "socially inept" students as well. You may want to add other students, the community, and modern society to that accountability list as well.

Edited - After your mention of the school bully I have to add the following to my answer:

Dealing with a bully does not equate social grace or aptitude. A socially adept child will be capable of conversing with other people, of making friends with new individuals, of understanding some nonverbal cues in a variety of interactions.

Dealing with an abusive individual is not in the average, well adjusted child's repertoire. As adults we are not expected to easily cope with (or accept) verbal abuse, harassment & assault.

In the situation you cite - bullies - the bullies are the ones with the social ineptitude. In such cases the victim of the bully is at the mercy of a complex combination of fight or flight instinct and their own moral beliefs.

The ability or inability of a child to deal with a bully (which in itself is a ridiculous necessity) is no indication of their social grace.