New DHS Probe

[GotCaughtDancing]

Anyone raising their child in a cult is not looking for healthy children/childhoods.

Yes I know. I was being sarcastic.

[JustJuls]

Yes I know. I was being sarcastic.

Oh my God....this makes me sick.

[DifferentGurl]

Someone posted this on Josh's Facebook Page:

A few gems from the book Michelle references in how to raise her kids. The book is called To Train Up A Child, Michelle Duggar has spoken rather highly of it. This is the kind of environment her children grow up in.

"If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, wait a moment, lecture again, and again spank him until it's obvious he's totally broken."(TTUAC, p59)

"Switch him 8-10 times on his bare legs or bottom. While waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If his crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If his crying is still defiant, protesting, and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he's come up against someone tougher than he is, it may take awhile...if you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest!" (TTUAC p80)

"If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally...A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered." (TTUAC p46)

It's like a how-to guide for Villains on how to break their captive hero. Not a book on how to raise a precious kid.

[fraurosena]

Someone posted this on Josh's Facebook Page:

A few gems from the book Michelle references in how to raise her kids. The book is called To Train Up A Child, Michelle Duggar has spoken rather highly of it. This is the kind of environment her children grow up in.

"If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, wait a moment, lecture again, and again spank him until it's obvious he's totally broken."(TTUAC, p59)

"Switch him 8-10 times on his bare legs or bottom. While waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If his crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If his crying is still defiant, protesting, and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he's come up against someone tougher than he is, it may take awhile...if you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest!" (TTUAC p80)

"If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally...A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered." (TTUAC p46)

Jesus wept!

How on earth is it possible that a book that essentially teaches you how to abuse your child hasn't been banned???? :wtf:

(yeah, yeah, freedom of speech and such... I know... but still...)

[paganhomeschooler]

I'm sorry, but your story seems a bit far-fetched. If the school district did put your children in special classes, you children should've had an IEP (since classes that are that far below grade level are generally self-contained classes). If they had an IEP, you should know that you have a right to due process should you feel the school district isn't addressing the needs of your child. If what you say is true, I guarantee that any court of law would rule against the school district. Something is just not adding up for me.

I tend to agree, but I will say, special ed is a mess, and it all depends on the people in the district. Honestly, it can even boil down to the person at the school. We've had great special ed experiences and horrible ones. In the same district. I'm curious to see what happens this coming school year now that my child who IS on an IEP will be in the same building as the child who NEEDS to be on an IEP but can read so they won't put her on one. Taking an advocate has helped exponentially.

There are ways they can do things to help without giving an IEP (inclusion classes, etc.) We're supposedly going to be doing those next year for my child, but they were supposed to be done this year and weren't, so I'm not holding my breath. They do know I mean business, and I've already threatened them with due process and have brought my advocate twice. That changed their tune from accusing me of wanting a doctor to lie about a dx so my kid could get services to saying they would absolutely look at all new testing results and recommendations I would get. It went from them (illegally) saying to me that "well, maybe she has ADD" to "you could get services for attention problems if they're diagnosed". (I do not in any way, shape, or form think my kid has ADD, but it is illegal for a school to suggest a child does have it.)

Keeping in mind, this is the same district where my son has been handed everything he needed. They even eventually put him in the reading program I asked for. Same district, different school buildings, different school psych.

But, yeah, I would've been all over due process if a school treated my kids like that...especially if I had a recording of a teacher doing such a thing. I know some parents don't know their rights, though. If your child isn't on an IEP, FAPE and things don't apply. It's a messy line of bureaucratic red tape, and you have to do your research and know your shit to get through it if you find people are less than helpful.

[mamallama]

In your post (not sure how to hold on tapatalk) you asked if I thought that NCLB and common core addressed the deficiencies in the public school system. In my opinion, NCLB hasn't because it is a misguided piece of legislation. It looks at test scores without looking more deeply into the reasons behind those test scores (socioeconomic status of students, funding of the school district, class size, etc). I actually like the idea of common core. The standards are plenty high, and school districts can adopt higher standards should they desire. I think it's important to ensure that all students in the U.S. Are held to the same basic standards in order to avoid the drastic differences in educational standards that currently exist. I think the testing that goes with Common Core is faulty and needs improvement.

My question for you is twofold. What on earth do NCLB and common core have to do with homeschooling oversight? No one has said that either of those things would be applied to homeschooling. Additionally, how do you propose we fix both the public education system, and how do you propose the U.S. should oversee homeschoolers to make sure that all students get a quality education?

Thank you for your answer. The reason I asked is because I've been watching these things from the sidelines and hearing about the complaints. I was just checking myself to make sure they were the generally held opinions. From where I sit, on the sidelines, I've watched attempts to ensure all students get a quality education and from my observation little has changed or improved. There are schools where "all the children are above average" and they do great and puff themselves up. These are schools where if a kid struggles the parents hire a tutor so even if there were a deficiency it wouldn't be seen. Then there are the schools where children have a myriad of social problems, there is a huge amount of teacher turnover and most of the teachers are brand new. I don't see how finding out how badly their schools are failing helps those kids. Going on my local schools the final upshot of Common Core is a battle over money. Previously we were doing the Terra Nova which is a McGraw Hill product so everyone had to teach what McGraw Hill said was important. Now Pierson has the ball and everyone is going to their model It's been hard on the kids, devastating to some. It's a huge time suck between the days spent testing and the classroom time spent on learning how to conform what was taught under McGraw Hill to the new modality. That's why I'll never endorse government oversight for homeschoolers.

Sure if there were a simple skills assessment every few years for me that would have been just a waste of a few hours. From what I've seen developing in schools though it snowballs. If I were the type to pull my kids out of school for ideological reasons the move to testing and away from curricula driven by excellent teachers would be the reason.

I feel for the homeschoolers who have parents who as far as I can see are educating them badly on purpose. I feel for the kids in school districts which are underfunded and carry huge burdens in terms of student needs. I don't think testing has helped the latter and I'm not convinced it will help the former.

You asked what I proposed and I don't have a solution other than be rich and educated so your kids will have all the advantages /sarcasm. My daughter who struggled with learning differences in private, public and homeschool wants to pursue education policy as a career.

[mamallama]

And props to whoever put the TTUAC quote on Josh's wall. It is sickening but I'm glad to see them exposed for what they are and his kids are at the greatest risk for these teachings at the moment.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I was disappointed that Kendalyn gave her latest child such an ordinary name not something that comes out in your poop after you eat a bunch of scrabble tiles.

It is sickening how people can follow the Pearls. How could someone have a child, and then do something that horrible to them :( How could anyone have it in their heart to hurt a child :(

[Mama Mia]

Thank you for your answer. The reason I asked is because I've been watching these things from the sidelines and hearing about the complaints. I was just checking myself to make sure they were the generally held opinions. From where I sit, on the sidelines, I've watched attempts to ensure all students get a quality education and from my observation little has changed or improved. There are schools where "all the children are above average" and they do great and puff themselves up. These are schools where if a kid struggles the parents hire a tutor so even if there were a deficiency it wouldn't be seen. Then there are the schools where children have a myriad of social problems, there is a huge amount of teacher turnover and most of the teachers are brand new. I don't see how finding out how badly their schools are failing helps those kids. Going on my local schools the final upshot of Common Core is a battle over money. Previously we were doing the Terra Nova which is a McGraw Hill product so everyone had to teach what McGraw Hill said was important. Now Pierson has the ball and everyone is going to their model It's been hard on the kids, devastating to some. It's a huge time suck between the days spent testing and the classroom time spent on learning how to conform what was taught under McGraw Hill to the new modality. That's why I'll never endorse government oversight for homeschoolers.

Sure if there were a simple skills assessment every few years for me that would have been just a waste of a few hours. From what I've seen developing in schools though it snowballs. If I were the type to pull my kids out of school for ideological reasons the move to testing and away from curricula driven by excellent teachers would be the reason.

I feel for the homeschoolers who have parents who as far as I can see are educating them badly on purpose. I feel for the kids in school districts which are underfunded and carry huge burdens in terms of student needs. I don't think testing has helped the latter and I'm not convinced it will help the former.

You asked what I proposed and I don't have a solution other than be rich and educated so your kids will have all the advantages /sarcasm. My daughter who struggled with learning differences in private, public and homeschool wants to pursue education policy as a career.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I'd just like to add that, in my view, it's horrible mandates like No Child Left Behind that make me especially leery of the public school systems ability to provide meaningful oversight to homeschooling students.

There is no reason to think that the a system that rests on some very flawed standardized tests , with dire consequences if the student body fails the tests , wouldn't be extended to home schools. Why would anyone trust that system?

I don't have a fix for public schools. I do find it appalling when the reflexive answer to why so many students struggle is to throw it back on demographic characteristics of the students. An answer that usually includes some sort of dismissive " well if you take poor and minority kids out of the equation, public school students do fine!" :shock:

[Mamato4]

I'm not sure if this has been previously linked but here's a clip from when Michael Pearl was on Anderson Cooper along with Elizabeth Esther. I recently read Elizabeth's book Girl at the end of the World and it was both fascinating and heartbreaking.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgcITPAKfc

Also a clip,of him comparing children to training animals... :pink-shock:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VByJFJKSn7o

[mamallama]

I hope I didn't come across as blaming poor kids for the poorly performing schools. I just think that pitting them against student who have every advantage is crazy. If the oversight were set up such that resources were redirected to failing schools I'd be all for it but instead the push has been to punish the schools and the teachers. While socio-economic status on it's own doesn't reflect a student's potential you can't ignore the fact that inner city schools serve kids who are challenged by circumstance beyond their control. To ignore that is equally dismissive.

[Evangeline]

In Alabama parents have to sign a form stating they do not want corporal punishment used to discipline their children.

It depends. My district doesn't do it at all. I've lived in several of these states and have never lived in a district that allows corporal punishment. The laws are on the books, but there are few districts that will open themselves to the liability.

[SpeakNow]

I hope I didn't come across as blaming poor kids for the poorly performing schools. I just think that pitting them against student who have every advantage is crazy. If the oversight were set up such that resources were redirected to failing schools I'd be all for it but instead the push has been to punish the schools and the teachers. While socio-economic status on it's own doesn't reflect a student's potential you can't ignore the fact that inner city schools serve kids who are challenged by circumstance beyond their control. To ignore that is equally dismissive.

THANK YOU!

I teach in a rural community that is not very well off. I've had to work with the school social worker to get clothing and shoes donated to some of my students. (Two of them were wearing shoes that were literally coming apart and held together by duct tape). I've also had to add money to kid's lunch accounts (they were on reduced price, not free lunch). It's really hard to focus all of your attention and energy on learning when your basic needs aren't necessarily being met. Ignoring the home life and looking at school performance only does these kids an injustice. I think we should take funds away from the prison system and funnel them into making sure that all children have their basic needs met and are able to come to school ready to learn.

[lawlifelgbt]

I haven't read a lot of this thread, so forgive me if it's already been mentioned. But, the Duggars had the right to keep DHS out as long as there wasn't a warrant or exigent circumstances. IMO, the police have too much power, and exercise power even beyond their broad permissible scope, and people need to start asserting their privacy and other Constitutional rights as a check on that power.

Whether it was wise for the Duggars to refuse (i.e. if refusing got them in more trouble), is another topic. However, I would encourage all of you US FJ'ers to know two things to say if police ever come to your home or stop your car: "I do not consent to any searches" and/or "Am I being detained?" as appropriate. If they're asking a lot of questions, state "I am unambiguously asserting my right to remain silent," then don't say anything more. A recent high-level court case stated that in order to assert the right to remain silent, one must actually say you're remaining silent. Ironic and nuts, I know. However, remain polite, and give over all needed paperwork if stopped in a car. Don't say anything else.

I hope to have kids soon, and if DHS came to my door, I would deny entry like the Duggars did. Once inside, they're going to be looking for anything wrong, and if a police officer is there, your consent would likely allow them to search where they like in your house, which is a massive privacy violation and could lead to a bad CPS designation or even criminal liability. I'm not a criminal, but just because I have nothing to hide does not mean I shouldn't stand up for privacy when it's so blatantly and often violated by abusive police power. However, if it's a welfare check on one child, I would want to avoid the denial being used against me, so I would close and lock my door after bringing my kid out, and let him or her talk with me there.

The Fourth Amendment increasingly means nothing to police or in this world now; but, one's home is still one's castle. Vehicles, though, mean really no privacy rights at all! Supreme Court precedent has gotten so expansive with the "plain view" doctrine and car searches that at a traffic stop, police do not need a warrant or consent to search almost anywhere/anything in your car, even closed compartments or bags, as long as there's probable cause. Probable cause is not hard to meet; it can just be being nervous in a high-crime area, having something small wrong with your car, acting oddly or being angry during a stop, etc. Therefore, I intend to keep stops I have very short, and not say anything except "am I free to go?" or "I do not consent to a search," so that I do not make some small mistake that trips probable cause.

In addition, police can search without probable cause under the "plain view" doctrine. This applies even to closed bags, etc. that are on the backseat/floor and look at all suspicious (e.g. lumpy bag might have drugs in it). This is a problem for me if stopped, since I'm not a great packer- my bags always look weird! The car my wife and I have is also one of the models without a separate trunk, so technically an officer could still see anything in the trunk area without having to open it. And besides, I don't really have the range of motion or height to put my bag in the trunk behind the seats anyway, (difficulty closing the lift gate). So I often put bags in the backseat, where they are even more visible. It doesn't seem fair that because of car design and my own condition, I would get less privacy. So I'm going to want to leave the stop ASAP.

Then there's my personal reasons for asserting rights against the police. My law school career has given me a great respect for individual rights, and I've seen how consent or police searches can lead to a record or years in jail. I don't do wrong things, but I'm still very principled. "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is complete BS. Assert some power back from the police for once!

Also, I thank God I'm white every time I hear of police brutality. But, I'm still gay! Statistically, police come down much harder and are more violent against LGBTQ people. So yes, I am kind of paranoid. My police department in town recently maced an 11 year old, too. I wouldn't call them for help unless I was dying, or it was some small thing like my cat getting stuck somewhere. When they have all those weapons, violence seems to be the answer to everything, and the culture on the force can be very homophobic and racist.

Sorry for the rant, I am about to start the criminal procedure portion of my bar study. I'm not defending the Duggars; after Joshgate, they should have expected an investigation, and they should have brought J'Child outside to DHS. But, they didn't have to let them in the house unless someone was seriously hurt or there was a warrant, and I don't think they should have to.

[Mama Mia]

It depends. My district doesn't do it at all. I've lived in several of these states and have never lived in a district that allows corporal punishment. The laws are on the books, but there are few districts that will open themselves to the liability.

I'm glad it's not used as often as it could be, but it still occurs over 150,000 times annually in the U.S. , mostly in rural districts in a handful of states. But the severity that is allowed, and that is allowed at all, is pretty shocking.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-she ... in-school/

[VelociRapture]

Someone posted this on Josh's Facebook Page:

A few gems from the book Michelle references in how to raise her kids. The book is called To Train Up A Child, Michelle Duggar has spoken rather highly of it. This is the kind of environment her children grow up in.

"If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, wait a moment, lecture again, and again spank him until it's obvious he's totally broken."(TTUAC, p59)

"Switch him 8-10 times on his bare legs or bottom. While waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If his crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If his crying is still defiant, protesting, and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he's come up against someone tougher than he is, it may take awhile...if you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest!" (TTUAC p80)

"If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally...A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered." (TTUAC p46)

Fundies: destroying hopes, dreams, and the will to live since the dawn of time. :angry-banghead:

[December]

Fundies: destroying hopes, dreams, and the will to live since the dawn of time. :angry-banghead:

There's really only one way you can keep so many kids toeing the line for so long. And it's a bad, abusive way. "Totally broken"?! What kind of parent wants to have a child that can be described as such?!

When I was a baby, someone gave my parents a book with similar suggestions for controlling a child who was too spirited (although, from what I understand, the other book's tactics were more psychological than physical). Apparently, the person thought my parents were giving me too much affection and was concerned I would turn out too... willful/headstrong, I guess? Once my parents realized what the book was about, they promptly got rid of it and told the giver something along the lines of "f*** off."

[NoneandDoneinCali]

I haven't read a lot of this thread, so forgive me if it's already been mentioned. But, the Duggars had the right to keep DHS out as long as there wasn't a warrant or exigent circumstances. IMO, the police have too much power, and exercise power even beyond their broad permissible scope, and people need to start asserting their privacy and other Constitutional rights as a check on that power.

Whether it was wise for the Duggars to refuse (i.e. if refusing got them in more trouble), is another topic. However, I would encourage all of you US FJ'ers to know two things to say if police ever come to your home or stop your car: "I do not consent to any searches" and/or "Am I being detained?" as appropriate. If they're asking a lot of questions, state "I am unambiguously asserting my right to remain silent," then don't say anything more. A recent high-level court case stated that in order to assert the right to remain silent, one must actually say you're remaining silent. Ironic and nuts, I know. However, remain polite, and give over all needed paperwork if stopped in a car. Don't say anything else.

I hope to have kids soon, and if DHS came to my door, I would deny entry like the Duggars did. Once inside, they're going to be looking for anything wrong, and if a police officer is there, your consent would likely allow them to search where they like in your house, which is a massive privacy violation and could lead to a bad CPS designation or even criminal liability. I'm not a criminal, but just because I have nothing to hide does not mean I shouldn't stand up for privacy when it's so blatantly and often violated by abusive police power. However, if it's a welfare check on one child, I would want to avoid the denial being used against me, so I would close and lock my door after bringing my kid out, and let him or her talk with me there.

The Fourth Amendment increasingly means nothing to police or in this world now; but, one's home is still one's castle. Vehicles, though, mean really no privacy rights at all! Supreme Court precedent has gotten so expansive with the "plain view" doctrine and car searches that at a traffic stop, police do not need a warrant or consent to search almost anywhere/anything in your car, even closed compartments or bags, as long as there's probable cause. Probable cause is not hard to meet; it can just be being nervous in a high-crime area, having something small wrong with your car, acting oddly or being angry during a stop, etc. Therefore, I intend to keep stops I have very short, and not say anything except "am I free to go?" or "I do not consent to a search," so that I do not make some small mistake that trips probable cause.

In addition, police can search without probable cause under the "plain view" doctrine. This applies even to closed bags, etc. that are on the backseat/floor and look at all suspicious (e.g. lumpy bag might have drugs in it). This is a problem for me if stopped, since I'm not a great packer- my bags always look weird! The car my wife and I have is also one of the models without a separate trunk, so technically an officer could still see anything in the trunk area without having to open it. And besides, I don't really have the range of motion or height to put my bag in the trunk behind the seats anyway, (difficulty closing the lift gate). So I often put bags in the backseat, where they are even more visible. It doesn't seem fair that because of car design and my own condition, I would get less privacy. So I'm going to want to leave the stop ASAP.

Then there's my personal reasons for asserting rights against the police. My law school career has given me a great respect for individual rights, and I've seen how consent or police searches can lead to a record or years in jail. I don't do wrong things, but I'm still very principled. "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is complete BS. Assert some power back from the police for once!

Also, I thank God I'm white every time I hear of police brutality. But, I'm still gay! Statistically, police come down much harder and are more violent against LGBTQ people. So yes, I am kind of paranoid. My police department in town recently maced an 11 year old, too. I wouldn't call them for help unless I was dying, or it was some small thing like my cat getting stuck somewhere. When they have all those weapons, violence seems to be the answer to everything, and the culture on the force can be very homophobic and racist.

Sorry for the rant, I am about to start the criminal procedure portion of my bar study. I'm not defending the Duggars; after Joshgate, they should have expected an investigation, and they should have brought J'Child outside to DHS. But, they didn't have to let them in the house unless someone was seriously hurt or there was a warrant, and I don't think they should have to.

Law Life, a DHS investigation is different than a police investigation into criminal activity. If the police are called, it is to enforce a DHS warrant to check on the welfare of a specific child/children, and to provide protection for the DHS worker. It does not automatically mean the children will be removed, or that charges will be filed. Apparently, it is SOP to include a police officer in some areas on the first visit (not in my area, though).

A DHS report is not public record, to protect the anonymity of the minor child. It is not the same as a criminal investigation, and most of the time, even when children are removed, criminal charges are not filed (though they may be if certain criteria is not eventually changed). The ultimate goal of DHS, whether successful or not, is to reunite parent and child, if possible.

Telling someone not to allow DHS into their home without a warrant is a very temporary fix, as the child's rights to safety takes precedence over the adult's right to privacy. If the police need to get involved with a criminal warrant for obstruction, THAT is a police report that becomes public knowledge (the DHS report will still not be available, and there is automatically a gag order to protect the identity of the child). Any judge can give a warrant for access to a child.

The best thing to do, again, is to cooperate with DHS. Personally, I would let them in my home (as opposed to a police officer without a warrant). But the very least you should do is produce the child and let DHS interview them on your porch, if they'd like. Half the time they just want to visually confirm your child is not neglected or bruised/beaten, with no interview necessary. You will NOT be able to avoid DHS with a lawyer or requesting a warrant, they are there for you child, NOT you as a parent. I feel like we're giving people misinformation here, telling them not to cooperate in this specific instance.

Other than that, I agree with your advice:)

[lawlifelgbt]

It seems we're in agreement; I stated that I would produce the child, just not allow them in the home. That's what the Duggars should have done (and make sure to lock the home door behind you!)

[NoneandDoneinCali]

It seems we're in agreement; I stated that I would produce the child, just not allow them in the home. That's what the Duggars should have done (and make sure to lock the home door behind you!)

Ah, okay. I should have read more closely. It's just that earlier in the thread, some posters were advising not to allow DHS in/cooperate without consulting an attorney, and so I've been trying to clarify that it's misguided because A) DHS is not conducting a criminal investigation and B) they WILL see your child, whether you like it or not (as they should, imo). If I didn't work in a field where I have contact with CPS (what it's called here), I know I would probably be confused as to the different types of investigations.

I just want my fellow FJers to be safe and not turn a quick wellness check into a criminal offense:)

[Talulah]

First time poster, long term lurker, but I just wanted to comment on my experience with corporal punishment in schools.

I grew up in rural Northwest Louisiana (in public schools from 1984 to 1997), where they apparently had corporal punishment in the schools but my parents signed a statement forbidding it from being used on us when myself and each of my two siblings entered school. To my knowledge, none of us were ever spanked in school, though I knew of kids who had been paddled, so it was definitely practiced. I will say that my parents where NOT against corporal punishment - they just didn't want us hit by anyone other than themselves. We were terrified of being beaten at home and tended to be very well behaved, so that might have also gone a long way towards helping us avoid paddling at schools.

However, I lived near Montgomery, Alabama for a time in the early to mid 2000's and worked with women who were on welfare. Through my work, I knew of a gay woman and her partner who had expressly forbid the school from using corporal punishment on their children, much as my parents had, but the school disregarded it because apparently they felt it was "in the best interest of the child." Their child was injured pretty severely during the paddling and they ended up moving out of state to get their kids away from that environment.

[RosyDaisy]

I'm from Alabama, and sadly things like that do happen. And the school an school board don't care.

[elizasc]

Thanks for your thoughtful post lawlifelgbt. Unfortunately much of what you hypothesize could happen to any of us.

[DuggarWatch]

Someone posted this on Josh's Facebook Page:

A few gems from the book Michelle references in how to raise her kids. The book is called To Train Up A Child, Michelle Duggar has spoken rather highly of it. This is the kind of environment her children grow up in.

"If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, wait a moment, lecture again, and again spank him until it's obvious he's totally broken."(TTUAC, p59)

"Switch him 8-10 times on his bare legs or bottom. While waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If his crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If his crying is still defiant, protesting, and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he's come up against someone tougher than he is, it may take awhile...if you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest!" (TTUAC p80)

"If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally...A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered." (TTUAC p46)

Thank you for posting this. I had no idea their "spanking" was so sadistic. Those kids are like prisoners of war. No parent who loves his child could abuse him in this way. Did Michelle actually say that this is what she does to her kids? :cry2:

[nelliebelle1197]

I tend to agree, but I will say, special ed is a mess, and it all depends on the people in the district. Honestly, it can even boil down to the person at the school. We've had great special ed experiences and horrible ones. In the same district. I'm curious to see what happens this coming school year now that my child who IS on an IEP will be in the same building as the child who NEEDS to be on an IEP but can read so they won't put her on one. Taking an advocate has helped exponentially.

There are ways they can do things to help without giving an IEP (inclusion classes, etc.) We're supposedly going to be doing those next year for my child, but they were supposed to be done this year and weren't, so I'm not holding my breath. They do know I mean business, and I've already threatened them with due process and have brought my advocate twice. That changed their tune from accusing me of wanting a doctor to lie about a dx so my kid could get services to saying they would absolutely look at all new testing results and recommendations I would get. It went from them (illegally) saying to me that "well, maybe she has ADD" to "you could get services for attention problems if they're diagnosed". (I do not in any way, shape, or form think my kid has ADD, but it is illegal for a school to suggest a child does have it.)

Keeping in mind, this is the same district where my son has been handed everything he needed. They even eventually put him in the reading program I asked for. Same district, different school buildings, different school psych.

But, yeah, I would've been all over due process if a school treated my kids like that...especially if I had a recording of a teacher doing such a thing. I know some parents don't know their rights, though. If your child isn't on an IEP, FAPE and things don't apply. It's a messy line of bureaucratic red tape, and you have to do your research and know your shit to get through it if you find people are less than helpful.

This does not add up for me, either. Above and beyond the fact that there are indeed avenues to take to appeal placement that require some basic testing and intervention, the medicine issue is unbelievable. Schools could be held liable if child gets sick. I have never heard of a school that won't administer or allow an older student to self administer vital medicine. Schools have nurses. That is a big part of its job.

And paganhomeschooler, I do know that schools often push diagnosis on kids because they can offer more services to a kid with an actual diagnosis. With all the people out there trying to play the rules, there has to be some sort litmus test. You probably just ran into someone who was not terribly creative in how she applied the rules.