Tag Archives: children

Home Education: Wonder and beauty before taxonomy and dissection

“if you go back to Greek, there is a word that does not exist in the English language, the word kalon, which means both “good” and “beautiful” at the same time, and it’s specified by another word, kaiagathon, or k’agathon, which is a contraction of to kalon kai to agathon, “the good and the beautiful”. Great marriage.” Peter Kreeft

P1020526The children love to go to the park or walk in the woods and one their favourite activities (especially for Heleyna) is to “look for nature” wherever they go. I want them to have a sense of wonder when they look at nature and to see it as beautiful and amazing. So far I think they do. I am not big on poetry and romance (in the old sense, well, and the new) but I do like the philosophical view of beauty as necessary for us to grow.

Charlotte Mason was very keen that children keep a nature journal in which they drew and stuck pressed flowers and such like. In this way they learn to see both the beauty and the “science” of nature. Part of this was based in her respect for the personhood of the child.

It’s the same with music and art. I think it’s very important that the children learn to listen to beautiful music and see lovely art works before I start explaining the methods involved. In learning to draw or play music it should be on a foundation of having had time to simply listen and look.

If the ancient philosophers are right and beauty is not so much in the eye of the beholder, but something inherent in itself, I want the children to have the time to see and hear and be, long enough to appreciate it. I think in giving them time to be with something beautiful they can acquire an appreciation of it, and can learn about it, taking it apart, later, if necessary, later. I think it’s a bit like the way a child learns language through first acquiring it in his relationship with those around him, especially his mother. A child can acquire a love of beauty through a relationship with a natural environment. Isn’t there some research out there about depression being linked to lack of greenery in housing estates?

With the Montessori approach to nature there’s a more scientific bent, which is good, but I want the children to appreciate creation as a whole, as well.

This is something that’s been floating about in what’s left of my foggy brain for some time. It began with an online conversation I saw between a home ed mother and a primary school teacher. She spoke of taking her children out to the woodlands and countryside so they could be outside and enjoy the place. She talked of stone walls and lichen and mosses. It all sounded lovely.

The teacher took exception to this. He said he took his group of children out and  by the time they trooped back to school they had identified and marked off various forms of lichen. I assume he armed them with worksheets, for this.

Perhaps he didn’t mean to come across the way he did, but I remember thinking how cold and meaningless his “lesson” seemed compared to hers. It also made me wonder (again) about the impact of closing children up inside institutional buildings with little exposure to the outside world. And then only exposing them in very restricted adult controlled ways.

One major advantage that home ed has over most other forms is time. We can take a summer day and let the children be out and about in it, without any time constraints  There are plenty of cold wet days to do workbook work; and the bright days are not so frequent we should squander them. Anyway, as a good science teacher should know, kids need sunlight to process vitamin D.

I can’t help thinking that many of the great Victorian and Edwardian naturalists that opened so much new scientific discovery to us, would never have been as observant or as in love with their subject of study had they only ever been exposed to the outside world in small time segments with a worksheet on a clipboard.

I think Charlotte Mason had it right. Children need time to be with nature before they need to analyse it. There is enjoyment and interest in learning the names of different mosses and lichens, but if a child is made to spend too much time peering at a stone in a wall and then writing on a worksheet, they are not getting the bigger picture they would have if they had time to stand and stare.

It’s past time to de-comoditise our children.

One of the things that seems to stand out when studying civilisations that have come and gone is that at the point of going they so often seem to fall to child sacrifice. There were many gods over many lands that apparently were happy to receive the lives of children in return for wealth.  Molech is perhaps the best known but the gods of the Aztecs and the Nazca people also, according to written texts and sad little graves, liked children. Saturn was blood thirsty for a while and his story even had him devouring his own children. Closer to home we have the Irish demon Crom Cruach. But even the otherwise human sacrifice free Romans sometimes resorted to child sacrifice as more recent archaeological discoveries have found.

How can this happen? Simple. Start viewing children not as persons in their own right but as commodities to be bartered, bought and sold and soon you can dispose of them in Molech’s fires or some South American stone table.  Of course our modern clean way is the abortion mills churning out dead babies with a false promise of problem solved.

During the fight to protect home education and home educating families the argument kept coming back to who children belonged to; who OWNS the children? It was a disturbing argument for on the one side were parents who claimed that children BELONGED to them and on the other those who saw children as commodities of the state. To belong is nothing like being owned and this was were the clash of language and understanding came.

Too many people have misused language to make false ideas. How often do we hear people insist they have a right to a child? Where does such a right come from? Certainly it is not rooted in natural law where the rights are with the child who has a right to life and to a mother and father who loves and cares for him. The right to own a child is little different from the right so many of the past have assumed to own a slave (often a child slave).

Ownership of children means some parents (too many) believe they can do as they like with the child they have spent money on. The poor kid is bought and paid for and so is the commodity of the family. Hence we see children paraded on some stage wearing bikinis and doing sexed up dances, or having their bodies harvested for organs to “save” a sibling. We see a schools system that insists that children are all cogs in the machine of commercialism. We see fake horror at pederasty scandals in the Catholic Church while children (not young adult men) are force fed sex ed and soft porn and dressed in clothes that actually have words stating that the child is available!! It took a campaign by concerned parents to have Primark remove the padded bra bikini sets for little girls from it’s shelves. Who on earth was the person who a) designed and made such a foul product and  b) thought it would sell and was a good product?

Why was my 7yr old son faced with a kill zombies game on a children’s website yesterday? (Keep the computer where you can see it).

Why is it ok for the local sweet shop to have porn on the shelves and why are so many advert posters just porn?

The abuse of children is supposed to be on the increase. While I don’t trust the NSPCC figures at all on this I think it would be a surprise in this culture if the “commodity” wasn’t being abused.

On Tuesday our little HE group was exposed to the parenting approach a few other mums and a dad. The dad was disinterested in his child and the mothers were frankly vicious. Foul language and foul behaviour with children no older than mine. Why? Well if the child is yours by right you can do what you like can’t you? If on the other hand the child is a blessing and a responsibility and a PERSON then you can’t scream abuse at them or allow them to bully and stamp on others.

It is not just that children have become commodities in our culture it’s the kind of commodity they have become. They are like dress up dolls with all the gadgets. They must have stuff, lots of it and it must be the most state of the art possible. Going by research and of course common sense, the more stuff these poor materially spoilt children are inflicted with, the more miserable and unsettled they are.

Give them less, love them more.

I hope more mums and dads will come forward as time goes on and demand the decomodisation of their children. The Government doesn’t own them, and we don’t own them. They belong to us because they have been given to us and we love them and we recognise that from the moment they were conceived they were and are persons in their own right with all the inherent dignity and right to respect that goes with that. The culture can only rebuild from the roots up and that means from the family. We have to repair the family and that includes changing the way we view children. It’s rooted in the old old notion of hospitality.

Fisking the DSCF

This from the DSCF:

Dear …..

Thank you for your email of 29 January regarding the review of home education. I have been asked to reply.

With regards to your concerns regarding suggestions that child abuse is linked with home education, I should explain, we know most home educated children are neither abused nor neglected.[So despite all the allegations made to the press they know it isn’t true. They have no evidence to back up the serious claims they made against home educating families] However, parents who abuse or neglect their children will find it easier to conceal this if they say they are educating their child at home as they will not be seen regularly by a teacher or other professional.[The assumption is that parents need monitoring and yet again no evidence is forthcoming. I might also add I can find no evidence that teachers are good at spotting a child who may be suffering abuse. In fact the just the opposite appears to be the case. While even the NSPCC has to concede the primary cause of abuse is bullying in school, which teachers seem unable to do much about] This means that Local Authoroties (LAs) do not have the same level of assurance about the welfare of children being educated at home, and there is a greater risk that the warning signs of abuse of a child not in school will not be picked up at an early stage. [One of the major front line professionals able to alert social services to possible abuse is the GP. No one is saying homeschooled children do not see their GP. There is also the arrogant assumption that only professionals have the wherewithall to spot abuse. Rubbish! All homeschool parents have enough sense to spot if a child is distressed for any reason. We spend a lot of time with each others children]

We are aware of allegations and concerns in this area but we want to establish what evidence is available.[In other words they have made the allegations in a very public way and even spent a lot of money launching a consult…I mean review but again there IS NO EVIDENCE]This is not just about that whether or not home education is currently used to cover child abuse, but also about ensuring that proportionate measures are in place to prevent it being used in future as a cover for neglect, forced marriage, or other forms of child abuse. [Meanwhile destroying all trust between parents, children and the LAs is supposed to help support children how exactly? The system we have works well. Parents and children work well together and families are able to support one another-but there are those who obviously want more control and cannot leave something that works well –well enough alone]

The Government’s priority is to safeguard all children. [Even though the evidence would suggest otherwise] This not about intervening with children educated one way whilst ignoring others.[‘Apart from the bit where we went all over the media making accusations about families who home educate, that have not been made about other forms of education’]  We want children educated in any setting to be safe and well and able to achieve the five ECM outcomes.[It is NOT UP TO the GOVt to ensure that children achieve the 5 ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes. Even if by some stretch of logic the outcomes made sense; and they don’t; no Govt could or should ensure all children achieve them. Parents have a right and duty to ensure their children are educated properly and in exercising that right and duty can ensure their children do well.] We already have effective mechanisms in place to monitor the safety of children in maintained schools.[Shall I laugh or cry? How can they seriously even attempt to make this claim!!!?} In addition, the Secretary of State has asked Sir Roger Singleton, Chair of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, to lead a review of safeguarding arrangements in independent schools, non-maintained special schools and boarding schools.[If this was supposed to make home educating parents feel better it doesn’t. It shows that anyone who isn’t part of the ‘one size fits all’ education package that has left so many children in this country illiterate and barely employable will be targeted for ‘monitoring’] The Review will examine the practical operation of the current statutory and non-statutory safeguarding arrangements that apply to these schools in England.&nbs p; Sir Roger expects to conclude his work in February 2009.

There is also a review underway of the operation of Local Safeguarding Children Boards.

I can assure you that there are no plans to change the right to educate at home.[But there are plenty of plans to make the choice of home education as difficult as possible. There are plenty of plans to try and force strangers into our homes to “monitor” us and demand we teach what the Govt want taught] The Review is about ensuring that the right mechanisms are in place to ensure that all home educated children are safe and well and are able to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.[Again they have not even read their own legislation. It’s a bit rich to tell families who home educate that the Govt can ensure our children achieve the 6 silly outcomes when children in school are NO WAY NEAR achieving them]

Yours sincerely

Alice Hickey
Public Communications Unit

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk

 Take a look at DARE TO KNOW for more info and excellent fisking.

In which the NSPCC attack homeschoolers, supporting the Govt. attack and homeschoolers respond.

 Mom And Kids Today I completed the Govt consultation..oops ‘review’. When it was pointed out they had broken the rules on inflicting consultations of people they changed the process to ‘review’. Of course the process is the same. If you haven’t had your say go to ONLINE ‘REVIEW’ FORM. Remember we only have until the 20th Feb to get this done.

below are a number of open letters and pieces of important information from the Facebook based group: Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home Educators! 

For Immediate Release, 2nd February 2009

HE PARENTS WELCOME CHILDREN’S SOCIETY REPORT

The Good Childhood Inquiry by the Children’s Society will release the results of its study this week. Home educators have welcomed the review which reports that the children of Britain need more parental attention, more freedom to play, more access to the outdoors, and are harmed by junk food, peer pressure leading to consumerism and experimentation with alcohol and drugs, and the stresses of bullying, academic competition and exam anxiety.

These stresses and strains are some of the reasons why so many parents make the decision to home educate their children. Home educated children have greater familial contact and much less exposure to the negative social and academic pressures endemic in schools. They also have far more access to play and to the outdoors and are free of the rigours of constant testing and standardisation. Recent studies also show that most watch far less television than their schooled peers, and become more self-aware and community minded. [1] All of these are exactly what the Children’s Society recommends for a happy, healthy childhood and by extension, a happy, healthy society.

“When I went to school I was bullied and I didn’t get any help from the teachers. Now I’m doing home schooling, I get help if I need it and I don’t get bullied.” – H, aged 12.

“I am loved and cared for and have great fun everyday, exploring, exercising, laughing and talking!” – A, aged 11.

A ‘slanderous’ review

Home educators were angered on 19th January by the announcement by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of an Independent Review of Home Education [2], the fourth such consultation since 2005. The review was especially surprising as guidelines to Local Authorities on home education have only recently been issued as a result of previous consultations.[3] This review targets home educators as potential abusers, but has nothing to say about the well documented abuse of children within the schools system. Home education organisations have repeatedly asked for statistical evidence to back up these claims, but according to Vijay Patel of the NSPCC there is no such evidence [4] and requests continue to be ignored.

The DCSF is ignoring the problems with their over-worked, under-funded and under-trained social care workers [5] and instead is looking into adding to their workload with the monitoring of a home educating minority, justifying their stance with unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay and little else.

Criticism for the DCSF

The DCSF has been criticised for its methods from the start of this review. Home educating parents in their hundreds have decided to use FaceBook as a tool to organise their protests, contesting the rights of the DCSF to interfere with their freedom to educate at home unmolested by bodies who have a history of hostility towards them and little apparent understanding of them. Several conclusions have been reached:

The branding of home educators by this review as potential child abusers is discriminatory and incites prejudice which actively harms children and their families.

There are concerns that issuing press statements that home education may be a cover for abuse may violate Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [6]

Article 17 says that the Government must not allow the mass media to publish things which harm children, but “the media, with Government backing, has inferred that many children are being abused by dint of the fact they are home educated,” says Techla, a home educating mother from West Yorkshire. “My children are hurt and angry at the suggestion, and at the thought that their non-HE friends will think this is the case.” Other children have also expressed their feelings that inciting suspicion against mum and dad is causing them distress.

Also, by not considering disabled children or those with Special Educational Needs the review’s consultation of Local Authorities may actually be illegal. [7]

In-house Social Services and Local Authority publications have carried letters and articles criticising home education, and reports are that memos have been circulated advising on how the Local Authorities consultation should be answered. This will have undue influence over the results of that consultation.

Many children were removed from school because of bullying, abuse, neglect, or the lack of provision of a suitable education. In many cases the Local Authorities were at best apathetic, at worst openly hostile to the needs of the child. To suggest that these children and their parents should be investigated by the very agencies that failed them is insulting and dangerous.

Home education provides a good childhood

Independent research has shown home education provides many of the qualities that the Good Childhood Inquiry finds essential to a happy, healthy childhood, and therefore to a happy, healthy society. Home educators then ask why the Government is apparently intent on the regulation of HE in the face of yet another indictment of their failing schools system. The DCSF’s attitude seems to be that childhood should be managed by the State at any cost. The conclusion seems to be that parents will necessarily abuse or neglect their children if they are not supervised. With their placing of the rights of Local Authorities above those of parents and children, as advocated in this Review of Home Education, it looks like the Children’s Society report will fall on deaf ears.

As home educators and parents we support the findings of the Inquiry as outlined above and feel we demonstrate the positive nature of many of their recommendations. Home education should be seen as evidence of a supportive, loving and nurturing home, not as a potential cover for malefactors.

Issued by the Home Educators of FaceBook

Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home Educators!”

————–
Notes for Editors:

[1] “How Children Learn at Home” by Alan Thomas, 2007.

[2] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/homeeducation/

[3] Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, October 2007. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf

[4] Jeremy Vine show, Radio 2, 20th January 2009:
JEREMY VINE: “Vijay, have you got any statistical base at all?”
VIJAY PATEL (NSPCC Child Protection Policy Advisor): “We… the inf… We don’t have the evidence there statistically, no.”

[5] UNISON report “Still Slipping Through The Net?” See http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8347

[6] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

[7] The LA questionnaire asks about children who are statemented for SEN. This ignores children with other disabilities and those which have SEN but are not statemented (parents of many home educated children with SEN prefer that they not be statemented). Government has a legal duty to consider disabled/SEN children (statemented or not) in all its documentation. http://www.dotheduty.org/

OPEN LETTER TO CRAE

Dear Sir/Madam

On January 19th, 2009, DCSF, acting on the wishes of the NSPCC and local authorities, launched a consultation (since changed to a ‘review’) on home education; their grounds for this being that they believe Home Educated children are vulnerable to abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude etc.

DCSF issued a press release to this effect which was taken up across the media with headlines along the same lines as this one in The Times newspaper:

Home education ‘can be cover for abuse and forced marriage’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5549380.ece

There is no evidence to suggest that Home Educated children are at an increased risk of being abused than are their schooled counterparts, in fact there is overwhelming evidence to suggest the opposite. Indeed when pressed for evidence, the NSPCC spokesperson stated on Radio 2 that they have no evidence or statistics to support their concerns.

The media, with government backing, has inferred that children are being abused by dint of the fact that they are Home Educated. Our children are hurt and angry at this suggestion, and at the thought that their non Home Educated friends will think this is the case. We believe this contravenes article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically:

(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.

Some of our children have written letters to you expressing their feelings about this matter, which we have collected on our Facebook discussion board, you can view them here.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=45453211491&topic=7289

On studying the 6 questions Home Educators and their children have been given to answer (the LAs have 60 by comparison!) question 6 is not qualified by a yes/no option and is proving very difficult for children to answer, and we are concerned that the children’s replies are at risk of being misinterpreted. As such we believe that DCSF has broken Article 12 of the UNCRC, which states:

Governments are to ensure that children have the right to express freely their views and to take account of children’s views. Children have the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them.

Question 1 of the Local Authority questionnaire gives us cause for concern: it asks how many children are statemented – statementing is not common place in Home Education, although there are a number of children with autism/medical issues. We believe the DCSF has failed their statutory disability equality duty, and as such any conclusions drawn from the Local Authority responses will not take the disabled into proper consideration.

The *review* as it has now been called, is due to end on February 20th, 2009, with yet another consultation to follow on the back of it later in the year. We would greatly appreciate your speedy advice on the matters broached within this email.

Yours faithfully

Techla Wood on behalf of:
stop the UK Government stigmatising Home Educators

CHILDREN’s Open Letters to CRAE

Please can you get your children to post THEIR OWN reasons why they think that this consultation and the press coverage announcing it is wrong. We will email CRAE and ask them to read the replies. We are doing this so as not to overload CRAE’s servers, we do however suggest that you copy and email your letters to Mr Patel at the NSPCC:
vijay.patel@nspcc.org.uk
and the DCSF
Gemmaine.Walsh@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

Dear sir or madam,
I have experienced primary and secondary school education and am now being home educated.
To put all Home Educators under the banner of ‘potential child abusers’ and furthermore to link us with forced marriage is, frankly, insulting. I believe that most of the negative views regarding Home Education coming from the media and government officials are based in a false idea of what it really is. That is to say, it is not being shut in the house all day with a child never to see the outside world, but rather to go out into the world and meet with different families, go to different paces and learn in a free way that can be tailored for each child.
Furthermore the notion that Home Education can be used as a cover for child abuse is somewhat unfounded in evidence and is not even logical. Abuse can take place just as easily around the school day as it can if the child is at home throughout, and abusive parents are surely more likely to send their children to school as to appear ‘normal’ to the community.
Yours sincerely,
Iona 15
 PinocchioThe NSPCC have been very dishonest. While in an interview on BBC Radio 2 The Jeremy Vine Show, VIjay Patel the policy adviser of the NSPCC had to admit that while the NSPCC were accusing homeschoolers of possibly abusing their children he had NO EVIDENCE to back this claim.

 

You can read a transcript of the programme HERE. As Mr. Fortune Woods has said in his video interview which I will post- this leaves homeschoolers having to defend ourselves against an allegation where we are now trying to prove a negative. I simply do not have the space to post the huge amount of disinformation that is trotted out by this heavily Government funded organisation-but if you can access Facebook take a look HERE.

 

The report on The Good Childhood Inquiry from the Children’s Society is due out today but the press have already been reporting on the findings.  The Telegraph concentrates on the lack of outdoor play and too much advertising aimed at children.

The Times Online is more indepth with a number of articles on the subject. HERE and HERE and HERE.

Books-choosing and vetting for children

I meant to say in the previous post we also vet and carefully choose the books we have in the house. A lot is said about the ‘media’ as though it doesn’t include the printed media and if it does it does not include books.

Children’s books can be pretty awful. Some are not morally awful-just badly written and I would rather the children read well written stories or fact books. Some of the ‘school’ books are just boring, badly written and inaccurate in facts. We avoid them.

Obviously we have no Jaqueline Wilson books in the house or Philip Pullman. We don’t have Dan Brown either although Josh was given a copy of the “Da Vinci Code”-which was renamed by discerning readers the ‘Duh Vinci Code’. Putting aside how one man can get so much so wrong in one book Josh couldn’t even get through it because it was so badly written.

You may wonder why we allowed him to read it. Mainly because he needed to answer those who bizarrely had read it and believed it! As he had been given a copy this was the opportunity with supervision to do so. Of course Josh is older. If he had been a young teen or impressionable I would simply have removed the book.

Parents need to be more aware of the messages in many books aimed directly at children and youngsters.  Many books try to undermine family life and especially purity.

Yes it is a minefield -walk cautiously.

Young’uns and the media

World Youth Day is over and I have barely caught any of it on EWTN as yet and I haven’t bothered with the MSM. They never tell you anything.

I have however read the Holy Father’s speech’s. He knows how to tell the truth doesn’t he?

Philip has posted the speeches in full, as well as a post showing a bizarre video of some bloke called Jenson. Read the text of the Holy Father’s speeches HERE and HERE. I haven’t actually had a chance to get the kids to read this stuff yet, but they will when they get an opportunity.

Sometimes I think holiday time is actually busier than term!

In his out reach to the young people at WYD the Holy Father talks bluntly about the real evils in modern life, drug and alcohol abuse and the way the media portrays evil.

“Here too, in our personal lives and in our communities, we can encounter a hostility, something dangerous; a poison which threatens to corrode what is good, reshape who we are, and distort the purpose for which we have been created. Examples abound, as you yourselves know. Among the more prevalent are alcohol and drug abuse, and the exaltation of violence and sexual degradation, often presented through television and the internet as entertainment. I ask myself, could anyone standing face to face with people who actually do suffer violence and sexual exploitation “explain” that these tragedies, portrayed in virtual form, are considered merely “entertainment”?”

He eloquently points out what so many refuse to see. I was struck by these words particularly as at the moment I am reading Teresa Tomeo’s little book ‘Noise’.The subtitle is “How our media-saturated culture dominates lives and dismantles families.”
 
 

 

Josh brought this book back from his trip to America.

The book is pretty short but it is packed with research and case study evidence of the massive damage being done to families and individuals by a bombardment of poor quality and down right nasty media. She tells of the impact the growing and very business savvy pornography industry is having on families.

There seem to be two main areas of the media that parents need to be on top of. First there is the fact that we have to police what our children get access to in programmes, music, internet sites, and friendships as well as printed material such a magazines.

Secondly we need to be on top of how much of even the good stuff we allow. Hours in front of a screen is a bad idea even if they are watching something as excellent and wholesome as Ray Mears.

Most of what this book offers is just plain old common sense. That fact that she has had to write this and that there is a definate need for people to read what she has to say only goes to show that plain of common sense is nowhere near as common as we might like it to be.

She talks about the impact daft thin, nearly dead girls have on the girls watching. Tomeo herself suffered from anorexia as a result of trying to be like someone she had seen on TV. She also points out that the plastic surgery industry is doing remarkably well out of the desire to look like those plastic people on TV.

The book packs a lot of information. There is the increased alcohol consumption among children who admit adverts have encouraged them to drink; there’s the effect of violent video games.

Continue reading

Children make you miserable- Dr Ray fisk

I was listening to Dr. Ray Guarendi the other day. For his monologue at the beginning of the programme he essentially fisked a rather flaky and frankly unpleasant article he had been sent from Newsweek Magazine. You can listen to him HERE Go to Wednesday July 2nd broadcast of The Doctor Is In.

Even in the article they admit that in the 1950’s parents were happy. it was something in the 1970’s that made raising children just so unpleasant. The article writers blame political circumstances. Dr Ray of course laughs at that-as should anyone with half a sense of reality.

Education and health care are NOT the major problem. Dr Ray points out that when people have children for their own ’emotional’ needs (as the article says) then those needs are hardly likey to be met. Parents have let children rule in the house and they hardly have any.

Dr Ray goes on to say quite a few other things that explain why people immersed in the ‘Me’ culture who have become weak parents. As a result of this the children can be rather unpleasant to live with. There was the cultural shift in the 60’s and 70’s away from valuing children as persons to treating them as disposable commodities. Have a couple-a boy and a girl- if you like, but only as some kind of addition to a home. Too few people really understand just what a parent is and what is expected of you as a parent.  Selfishness and the ‘Me’ culture with the Culture of Death do not mix well with being a real parent.

Meanwhile-Dr Ray rocks! LOL!