Show & Tell: Socialization, Transracial Adoption, and other interesting finds

One excellent article I read this week that I really want to highlight is by Terry, who blogs over at Ornaments of Grace, called "Living in Neverland". Here's an excerpt:

"The medical and scientific community have concluded in recent years that adolescence-the final stage of childhood-ends at or around age 25. Yes, I said that 25 year olds are now considered adolescents. This is disturbing to me on a number of levels.

Given the progress and advancements of the last century it would stand to reason that this generation of young people would be better equipped to handle life and the responsibility of adulthood, not less. It's obvious that somewhere along the way we took a wrong turn."
GO READ the rest of this fantastic article.


TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION:

  • My friend, Renee, wrote a very sweet post as a adoptive mom who parents several sons from Ethiopia (they're currently in the process to adopt two more from Ghana!)
  • Here's an interesting interview about transracial adoption with good advice for parents about teaching our kids that they are created in God's image! (I think it's good advice regardless of whether you've adopted transracially or not... he hits some very important points in this brief interview.)

HOMESCHOOLING/SOCIALIZATION:

  • My friend Jazzy wrote an excellent "answer" to the oft-asked question asked of homeschooling parents: "What about socialization?"
  • WOW! Christine writes a thought-provoking SELF-CHECK TEST for homeschooling moms. But frankly, for any parent, this is a convicting list of questions to ask yourself to see how your philosophy lines up with your practice!

IMPORTANCE OF MOM BEING AT HOME:


OTHER INTERESTING READS:


And, as always, here's the LAUGH you may need today! Go check out Steph's video post, iBible. Happy reading!!!

14 comments:

Kim said...

There is such a thing as state ENFORCED preschool?!?! Very, very scary.

Anna S said...

Thank you for sharing those interesting links, Jess!

Jess said...

Kim,
It is my understanding that some states are beginning to consider state-required preschool, and I'm fairly certain that Hillary has certainly mentioned mandatory preschool as an option for "advancing" educational goals in America. BLEGH!

In addition to fouling up our kids any more (if you can't do a good job with THIRTEEN years, why would we add MORE, I want to ask?), this would shackle homeschooling parents or just average stay-home moms who want to be home with their kids until say, ages 5-6... because they would possibly be required to prove what curriculum, educational efforts, etc. that they are using with their THREE, FOUR, and FIVE year old children.

It's getting absurd, scary, and sad.
Jess

Kara said...

Just about the comments made about enforced preschool...(I in no way support or concur with Hillary's philosophies). I will say though that there are many, many kids out there that do not have caring parents at home. Some are in poorly run daycares, many spend many hours at home by themselves, maybe watched by an older sibling. I just think that in the US our Christian circles are so concerned about our own children and what rights are being taken away from us that we forget the place many children are in.... (Of COURSE we are concerned with our children and must do our best with them.) In the town we came from they had started a couple 4-year old pre-ks on a trial basis. From the kids I was around this provided at least a more stable, caring environment than they would have been getting...

Just some thoughts. I feel really strongly that in the attempt to protect ourselves and separated ourselves so far from the "world" we have "forgotten" that there are other kids that are out there..

barbara said...

Kara's comments are right on target, particularly her last paragraph.

Kim said...

I am sure that the idea of mandatory preschool is proposed with the best intentions - although, as I was at substitute teacher training the other day, we were reminded that of course there is a price tag on student's heads, and schools are competing for students because they get more funds. Anyway. As I was saying, although I am sure that the thought of kids without caring parents at home is a big one in the minds of people advocating for this, I think that those are typically the kids who are already in Jump Start or Head Start (they can be in Jump Start at 3yo). So I think you are right Jess - it then saddles even the regular stay at home mom with the burden of proving that they are educating their three year olds...not to mention working moms who (whether they have to work or not) use daycare - the school day cuts into work hours on both ends of the day. It's just not practical. (It is what is bringing my sister in law home from work, in fact - which is a good thing, but they are by no means really financially stable...)

Anyway. Enough rambling. This idea is just appalling to me.

Britt said...

Great links! I really enjoyed my "laugh today."

Buffy said...

Yes, for the children from the worst homes their experience of schools (sometimes 'alternative' or 'special' schools) are the closest they come to normality, routine and caring people. Teachers shouldn't have to stand in for parents but sometimes they do.

That said, I think you should have the right to withdraw your child from the system if you can demonstrate you can provide an alternative that is just as good or better.

Jess said...

Kara, Barbara, and Buffy,

I 100% see where you are coming from as a compassionate Christian person.

But I completely disagree with the following:

(1) the notion that it is the tax payer's responsibility to provide services for preschool (frankly, I disagree with the existence of the Dept. of Education, but that's a debate for another day)

(2) the notion that these programs would be mandatory (what Buffy said essentially lines up with forcing responsible parents to be on the defensive, and have to *demonstrate *that they can provide "as good" an alternative to whatever the current psychiatrists and "child specialists" say is necessary for the proper development of a 3,4, or 5 year old)

(3) the notion that the government is in ANY way responsible for making sure that three year olds are "properly" educated and raised.

Outside of orphans and clear situations of abuse, the government should not be involved in the lives of preschoolers. Period. Yes, clearly, there will be inequity in how various children are raised. That has always been the case.

In my view, it is the CHURCH that ought to step in and care for orphans and widows and possibly serve their community in a variety of ways, such as perhaps a preschool ministry of some kind in a low-income area. But tax dollars, taken from the hands of hardworking people (Christians and non-Christians alike) ought not be used to cater to the lowest common denominator of every societal problem.

I just don't see government as the right solution here. The church? Yes. Christian people who can come together and offer inexpensive (or even free) Mothers' Day Out sort of opportunities? Absolutely! But the government ought not take over the reins of the lives of young children and then force responsible parents to have to *prove* anything to them about what is being done with their children.

That's my view of how these things should be *publicly* worked out.

Now, privately, each Christian is responsible to God to see what He would have them do about caring for those who are uncared for (i.e., all the verses about caring for orphans and widows, and Jesus' example of caring for children). But public funds being used to intrude into the lives of families across America is NOT an idea that is acceptable or admirable, in my view.

~Jess

deb said...

Someone mentioned that children from the worst homes will be able to experience a more normal enviroment through public school. I can only speak from my own experience and this might differ from others.

My home life was dysfunctional. I don't remember school being an oasis for me. Yes, my teachers were not cruel but neither were they affectionate or overly concerned with me. Many of my teachers took special interest in either the children of richer parents or those kids who acted out. I was quiet, so I wasn't noticed.

My peers had more of an effect on me. Children notice who is vulnerable and they will tease that child. So, I spent many days just silently miserable.

By the way, I tried to enroll my oldest son in head start. Financially, we were considered below the poverty line but we had managed to remain off food stamps and welfare. I was told that because my family had never been investigated by child welfare and had remained off public welfare that my son couldn't enroll in headstart. So, the government already has programs for kids who are endangered.

LisaM said...

you've included a lot of good reading here again, Jess. Thanks for taking the time to find and report all these good articles by Christian women - I am encouraged by knowing that we're not alone. Keep up the good work!

Buffy said...

Just for the record I wasn't talking about pre-school children -I should have made that clear!

Also, of course, charity should begin at home and not be left for the government to deal with.

Terry said...

Jess, I've really been intrigued by the comments on enforced preschool. I agree wholeheartedly with you that many of the things we have been conditioned to look for government to provide are things government shouldn't be involved in. I think government should have 3 primary functions: public safety, national security, and protecting our borders. Parents should make educational choices. One of the reason that public schools are in such a mess is because of compulsory attendance laws. I know, I know, how will they learn if we don't make them go to school? Again, up to the parents! I'm done rambling now. BTW, thanks for the plug!

christinemm said...

I am glad you liked my self-check for homeschool moms. Some of your blog readers are clicking through from your blog.

Thanks!