Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.

[Shane]

I've run across similar reasoning rather often in the past few years, enough that it's becoming a bit disturbing.

We do live in the information age.  It's possible to pull out a smartphone and find the answer to virtually any question in short order.  That doesn't mean that there's no value in learning and maintaining the general knowledge necessary to think.  The benefits of basic education are massively undervalued by many people.

You're arguing against a straw man here, @GuitarStv. I sure never said there was, "no value in learning and maintaining the general knowledge necessary to think." Maybe you're referring to somebody else's post?

I wasn't really arguing with your post (that's why I didn't quote it) . . . it was just a response to a disturbingly common sentiment that your post reminded me of.  There are way too many people I've run into who think that math is worthless since every smart phone has a calculator these days.

Oh, okay. Sorry, @GuitarStv. I misunderstood.

I agree with you that math is not worthless. We're constantly using math in our every day lives. Just the other day at the beach in New Zealand, I was using a stick to write simple equations in the sand as I preached to (I mean taught) our nine year old about how useful algebra is in everyday life. I'm constantly trying to find real life examples to motivate her to learn more math. Every morning, 5-7 days a week, my wife sits down with our daughter and helps her go through another chapter or two in Khan Academy's 3rd grade math curriculum. She actually seems to like it, especially when I'm able to give her examples of practical uses.

[SachaFiscal]

For kids being abused by their parents, it’s harder to figure it out and help them if they are homeschooled.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/01/15/parents-arrested-for-torture-13-children/

[Psychstache]

While this is an anecdote, I do think it is a perfect example about the concern that I specifically have with the complete hands off approach to homeschool like my state does:

(Quick refresher: I work for a public school system in a state where if a parent simply tells the school they are withdrawing their child and homeschooling, there is no further steps to be taken by the parent.)

So, we recently had a previously 'homeschooled' student enroll. The student moved in with grandparents recently and grandma wanted to enroll her.

We some quick assessments with the student to see where they are at. The child is a nonreader. They do not know how to do basic math facts. They have huge gaps in expected knowledge. The child is 13 years old.

Essentially, this child is $%^#ed. It will take several miracles and Herculean efforts from teachers and support staff to get this child prepared to be graduated in 5 years (at which point they will be another example of 'the public school system failing a child').

I know that there has been the argument from some that this is child abuse, not homeschooling, which is don't necessarily disagree with, but that seems like useless semantics for the kid. I don't see why parents who provide high quality home school would be so opposed to some tiny, simple steps to prevent a situation like this. Like, we can't ask parents who want to home school to submit records of what they have taught kids (not for approval, but simply having to send in what covered) or register for a 6 hour Saturday class for $10 on teaching basics?

Also, sidenote, but I have seen a couple of people (or maybe one person repeating) about how most of what teaching programs cover is 'crowd conrol'/classroom management, and I have to disagree. My wife went through a teaching masters program, I have guest lectured a couple of times for some friends who teach classes in 2 different teaching programs, and I have trained new freshly graduated teachers from programs all over the state and in neighboring states. The biggest area where they have gaps is classroom management (and special education law, but that is a niche need). Most programs, including the prestigious ones, focus on learning design, pedagogy, vertical alignment of curriculum, and differentiated learning and pretty much ignore covering classroom management skills.

[joonifloofeefloo]

The child is a nonreader. They do not know how to do basic math facts. They have huge gaps in expected knowledge. The child is 13 years old.

Essentially, this child is $%^#ed.

This child is not fucked.
Check out books on unschooling to see examples of (rare) kids reaching this age as nonreaders -or "behind" in other metrics- and what happened subsequently.

I don't see why parents who provide high quality home school would be so opposed to some tiny, simple steps to prevent a situation like this. Like, we can't ask parents who want to home school to submit records of what they have taught kids (not for approval, but simply having to send in what covered) or register for a 6 hour Saturday class for $10 on teaching basics?

Most of us aren't (opposed to this).

I do know some very responsible families who do opt out of reporting systems (only because the reporting is make-work or onerous), but keep their kids engaged in the community. In one community, I met a few outlier families who oppose all communication with agencies (e.g., refusing to register their children's birth, get a social insurance number, etc), but bring their kids to community classes. They would be opposed to a requirement for communication, but they are rare.

[almcclur]

I know that there has been the argument from some that this is child abuse, not homeschooling, which is don't necessarily disagree with, but that seems like useless semantics for the kid. I don't see why parents who provide high quality home school would be so opposed to some tiny, simple steps to prevent a situation like this. Like, we can't ask parents who want to home school to submit records of what they have taught kids (not for approval, but simply having to send in what covered) or register for a 6 hour Saturday class for $10 on teaching basics?

I'm not hardened to the horror of the potential abuses, but it's such a balance. Do we start from the assumption that parents can't be trusted and must be regulated, or do we assume parents have the authority and intent to adequately raise their children, and then address problems that arise? Some people are more comfortable giving up some of their freedom and autonomy if it means catching the small fraction who fall through the cracks. But many of those tactics you mentioned wouldn't actually catch a real abuse situation.

Just like you have that random hs kid who wasn't actually educated for years, you also have kids who graduate from public high school unable to read. I think that regulating everyone based on the outliers is not the most effective.

[jeninco]

<snip, since it's not what I want to respond to>

Just like you have that random hs kid who wasn't actually educated for years, you also have kids who graduate from public high school unable to read. I think that regulating everyone based on the outliers is not the most effective.

OK, this feels just like the "homeschooling parents want to control the ideas their kid comes in contact with" argument, to which a number of parents have pointed out that's not their general experience.

Sure, a very small number of kids may make it out of high school unable to read, but I haven't yet met any of those kids, or any adults who they grew into. And if it's a problem at a specific few schools, then steps should be taken to remediate the problem(s) at those few schools. I don't believe (nor is it my experience with lots of adults and quite a few high schoolers) this is a common occurrence, so let's stop throwing it around as a straw man, m'key?

[almcclur]

I actually think it’s a pretty good comparison since both examples are uncommon outliers.

[MrThatsDifferent]

They homeschooled their children: https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/13-siblings-were-held-captive-by-their-parents?utm_term=.ayByo5pv#.coNN4xe8

[Shane]

Just because some parents abuse their children, keeping them home from school and not teaching them anything, doesn't mean the rest of us should be required to submit to more State reporting requirements. Parents of children who are suspected of being abused should be reported to Child Protective Services. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the rest of us should be presumed innocent and capable of educating our own children as we see fit. Why anyone would be willing to give up her right to privacy without a fight is beyond me. It's like when the police try to argue, "If you're not a criminal, why would you possibly mind if I searched your bag?" (or car or house or whatever). I'm grateful our state doesn't impose any reporting requirements on us. Every family I'm personally aware of who is homeschooling is doing the best they can. I would for sure fight against any increase in state oversight of our child's education.

[GuitarStv]

Just because some parents abuse their children, keeping them home from school and not teaching them anything, doesn't mean the rest of us should be required to submit to more State reporting requirements. Parents of children who are suspected of being abused should be reported to Child Protective Services. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the rest of us should be presumed innocent and capable of educating our own children as we see fit. Why anyone would be willing to give up her right to privacy without a fight is beyond me. It's like when the police try to argue, "If you're not a criminal, why would you possibly mind if I searched your bag?" (or car or house or whatever). I'm grateful our state doesn't impose any reporting requirements on us. Every family I'm personally aware of who is homeschooling is doing the best they can. I would for sure fight against any increase in state oversight of our child's education.

I agree that the vast majority of homeschooling parents are kind/loving people, and the general presumption should be that someone who wants to homeschool is similar.

I'd argue though that homeschooling does make it possible for a bad parent to hide abuse (since the children are well out of the public eye) for extended periods of time.  While it is a very rare occurrence, maybe some small modicum of oversight would have prevented the tragedy that occurred with those thirteen children.

[shenlong55]

Just because some parents abuse their children, keeping them home from school and not teaching them anything, doesn't mean the rest of us should be required to submit to more State reporting requirements. Parents of children who are suspected of being abused should be reported to Child Protective Services. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the rest of us should be presumed innocent and capable of educating our own children as we see fit. Why anyone would be willing to give up her right to privacy without a fight is beyond me. It's like when the police try to argue, "If you're not a criminal, why would you possibly mind if I searched your bag?" (or car or house or whatever). I'm grateful our state doesn't impose any reporting requirements on us. Every family I'm personally aware of who is homeschooling is doing the best they can. I would for sure fight against any increase in state oversight of our child's education.

Because it's not about my right to privacy, it's about my children's right to not be abused.  I would happily give up a small amount privacy to protect my children from harm, and I apply the same logic to others children as well.  Why anyone cannot understand that children have rights that need to be balanced against parental rights is beyond me.

[joonifloofeefloo]

...maybe some small modicum of oversight would have prevented the tragedy that occurred with those thirteen children.

Sadly, I don't think it would have.

Some parents who abuse are excellent at hiding it. They time things strategically. They call the kid in sick when there are too many tells. Etc. (This is true regardless of where kids are educated.) They would just submit "evidence of learning" (as they call it here) and carry on. When people are committed to abusing, they are strategic. They don't register their kids' births, or they keep their kids inside so long their neighbours don't even know there ARE kids inside...

The abuse that takes place by B&M teachers and other staff -where an abuser has been vetted, has the trust of peers, has opportunity to groom, and has ongoing access- is, likewise, not a reason to shut down B&M schools. Ditto camps, etc.

I think there are a LOT of flaws in our systems for child safety, but again, that's unrelated to the matter of where kids receive education.

So we'd be looking at requirements not of submitting evidence of learning, but: All people (whether known to be parents or not) must allow their home to be checked randomly, at least once a week, by a third party. If a child is located, the child must be presented at least once a week to a third party. That would be an interesting one to debate, but very distinct from the topic of homeschooling.

[ormaybemidgets]

Agreed, religion is not an immutable characteristic. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees, ruling that, "although it is possible to change one's religion, it is not something a person should *have* to change," and is therefore considered immutable.

Can you post a citation? I just spent way too long trying to find such a SCOTUS quote. It is certainly not out there with these words, specifically.

[GuitarStv]

The abuse that takes place by B&M teachers and other staff -where an abuser has been vetted, has the trust of peers, has opportunity to groom, and has ongoing access- is, likewise, not a reason to shut down B&M schools.

This is an example of the kind of false equivalence that you have used multiple times in this discussion.  I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I would ask that you more carefully think about comparisons you make in the future.

Bad things will happen from time to time anywhere that there are people.  That's why any large organization develops checks and balances to prevent these issues.  While not perfect, they exist for teachers in public schools.  They do not exist for parents who choose to home-school.  As such, the situation regarding abuse by an educator is completely different when comparing a public school with a home-school scenario.

[joonifloofeefloo]

The abuse that takes place by B&M teachers and other staff -where an abuser has been vetted, has the trust of peers, has opportunity to groom, and has ongoing access- is, likewise, not a reason to shut down B&M schools.

This is an example of the kind of false equivalence that you have used multiple times in this discussion.  I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I would ask that you more carefully think about comparisons you make in the future.

Bad things will happen from time to time anywhere that there are people.  That's why any large organization develops checks and balances to prevent these issues.  While not perfect, they exist for teachers in public schools.  They do not exist for parents who choose to home-school.  As such, the situation regarding abuse by an educator is completely different when comparing a public school with a home-school scenario.

I haven't been using false equivalencies, GuitarStv. I've made statements, each of which stand on their own. I think you may be adding relationships between my words that I don't intend.

I agree with what you're saying here: bad things happen anywhere.

I've been saying: Bad things happen in any context. No situation is safe/protected from the potential for abuse. All abuse is bad and ideally is prevented.

Some folks keen on B&M schools and opposed to homeschooling struggle with the idea of abuse happening despite B&M schooling or even in B&M schools. I don't. I recognize it happens in all places, that's all.

I think when we claim that B&M schools provide extra safety from abuse, we do all children a disservice. This idea results in more abuse being overlooked, dismissed, disregarded. The abuse I saw take place in the "safety" of the school system, despite reporting, was horrific.

We disagree about where there is more safety, wellness, and thriving. That's okay. I think my perspective is fair and balanced: I'm proposing we not shut down any form/place of school, and that we only shut down abuse, wherever it's occurring.

[joonifloofeefloo]

I think what you're saying, GuitarStv, is that in your understanding B&M schools inherently include effective systems of checks and balances, and homeschooling does not.

I'm saying:
*most B&M schools and most homeschool approaches inherently include systems of checks and balances, and
*the B&M system of checks-and-balances is often ineffective (because of issues I posted above)
*an ineffective system can be more dangerous than no system (because people put faith in the system, assuming it's working)

These are why I don't view B&M school as safe or safer than the homeschooling.

[GuitarStv]

I'm saying:
*most B&M schools and most homeschool approaches inherently include systems of checks and balances

OK, I'll bite.  What system of checks and balances do you provide your children that will protect them from abuse from you?

[joonifloofeefloo]

It wasn't bait :(

[GuitarStv]

It wasn't bait :(

To be fair, I didn't expect that you really had any checks and balances to protect your children from yourself.

I'm trying to highlight what I perceive as the safety problem with homeschooling, and why it can't be solved by the parent doing the education.  The risk of abuse being hidden is increased (in the rare cases where one of the parents is abusive) because the abusive person is in charge of every aspect and interaction of the child's life.

Now, whether this occurs often enough to be a cause of concern, I don't know.  It is not something that can be brushed away by saying 'abuse happens everywhere' though.

[Lance Burkhart]

I actually think it’s a pretty good comparison since both examples are uncommon outliers.

The frequency of this outcome is, in fact, unknown:
https://californiapolicycenter.org/unaccountability-education-establishment/

[Trifle]

I'm saying:
*most B&M schools and most homeschool approaches inherently include systems of checks and balances

OK, I'll bite.  What system of checks and balances do you provide your children that will protect them from abuse from you?

Everything JooniFlorisPloo said in her two posts above is correct, GuitarStv.  I think your mind-set about homeschooling may be preventing you from seeing the equivalencies.

Most homeschooling approaches do not involve an isolated child, locked away from the world.  As has been explained many times by many posters in this thread, that's not how it works for the vast majority of homeschooling families.  The vast majority of homeschooled kids are involved in multiple groups, and many are tutored by multiple adults.  (This is the same "many eyes watching" safeguard that you believe exists in the public schools, if I understand your comments correctly.)

Your comments also hint that you may have a blind spot about the frequency of abuse of kids in public schools.     Again -- not bashing public schools -- but it happens.  I would wager to say more frequently than most people think it does.  I've seen it.  In the end, abuse can and does happen everywhere, unfortunately. 

[GuitarStv]

I'm saying:
*most B&M schools and most homeschool approaches inherently include systems of checks and balances

OK, I'll bite.  What system of checks and balances do you provide your children that will protect them from abuse from you?

Everything JooniFlorisPloo said in her two posts above is correct, GuitarStv.  I think your mind-set about homeschooling may be preventing you from seeing the equivalencies.

Most homeschooling approaches do not involve an isolated child, locked away from the world.  As has been explained many times by many posters in this thread, that's not how it works for the vast majority of homeschooling families.  The vast majority of homeschooled kids are involved in multiple groups, and many are tutored by multiple adults.  (This is the same "many eyes watching" safeguard that you believe exists in the public schools, if I understand your comments correctly.)

Your comments also hint that you may have a blind spot about the frequency of abuse of kids in public schools.     Again -- not bashing public schools -- but it happens.  I would wager to say more frequently than most people think it does.  I've seen it.  In the end, abuse can and does happen everywhere, unfortunately.

If a parent chooses to surround their kid with lots of helpful and well-learned adults as part of educating at home, that's cool.  I'm pretty sure that I've agreed that it sounds like a great approach on several occasions now, and many people in this thread have indicated that it is the norm for homeschooling.

We weren't discussing good homeschooling though.  My initial comment was that it would seem to be easier to hide parental abuse if you don't have anyone other than the parent looking after the kid.  I'm certain that the vast majority of parents who homeschool aren't abusive (in case that wasn't clear).

Yes, I'm aware that abuse can happen in any situation.  Yes, I'm aware that the additional existing safeguards can fail in schools.  Any parent with a kid in school should keep an eye out for anything going wrong.  It is however harder to get away with abuse from a teacher when there is a principal, there are other teachers, there are other parents, and there are other children all forming a communicative community in a school.  This level of protection doesn't exist for kids who are home schooled though.  So, maybe there should be some modicum of regulation on that front.

[Tabaxus]

All anecdotes but I think several people posting on this thread may have best practices reinforcement going on.  I've known a number of homeschoolers and homeschooled kids.  None of the experiences I'm aware of match the best practices described here, which I have less of a problem with (though I still have serious problems with not having a somewhat defined required curriculum and the selective socialization that occurs even in the well-described homeschooling described by many in this thread).

Totally appreciate that I'm probably exposed to a negative confirmation bias in the other direction.

Would be interested in truly neutral academic reviews of the issues here, honestly.

[Shane]

Agreed, religion is not an immutable characteristic. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees, ruling that, "although it is possible to change one's religion, it is not something a person should *have* to change," and is therefore considered immutable.

Can you post a citation? I just spent way too long trying to find such a SCOTUS quote. It is certainly not out there with these words, specifically.

@ormaybemidgets, Here's an article from the Yale Law Journal. Here's the abstract:

ABSTRACT. Courts often hold that antidiscrimination law protects “immutable” characteristics, like sex and race. In a series of recent cases, gay rights advocates have persuaded courts to expand the concept of immutability to include not just those traits an individual cannot change, but also those considered too important for anyone to be asked to change. Sexual orientation and religion are paradigmatic examples. This Article critically examines this new concept of immutability, asking whether it is fundamentally different from the old one and how it might apply to characteristics on the borders of employment discrimination law’s protection, such as obesity, pregnancy, and criminal records. It argues that the new immutability does not avoid the old version’s troublesome judgments about which traits are morally blameworthy and introduces new difficulties by requiring problematic judgments about which traits are important. Ultimately, immutability considerations of both the old and new varieties distract from the aim of employment discrimination law: targeting unreasonable and systemic forms of bias.

[Shane]

Just because some parents abuse their children, keeping them home from school and not teaching them anything, doesn't mean the rest of us should be required to submit to more State reporting requirements. Parents of children who are suspected of being abused should be reported to Child Protective Services. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the rest of us should be presumed innocent and capable of educating our own children as we see fit. Why anyone would be willing to give up her right to privacy without a fight is beyond me. It's like when the police try to argue, "If you're not a criminal, why would you possibly mind if I searched your bag?" (or car or house or whatever). I'm grateful our state doesn't impose any reporting requirements on us. Every family I'm personally aware of who is homeschooling is doing the best they can. I would for sure fight against any increase in state oversight of our child's education.

Because it's not about my right to privacy, it's about my children's right to not be abused.  I would happily give up a small amount privacy to protect my children from harm, and I apply the same logic to others children as well.  Why anyone cannot understand that children have rights that need to be balanced against parental rights is beyond me.

What if some kids got abused over summer break from school and, as a result, some government bureaucrats came up with the idea that requiring parents to file reports on their kids' activities during summer break might help prevent other kids from getting abused in the future? Would you be okay with that? What if your kids' school district came up with a plan to help keep kids from getting abused by requiring that all children call the school every evening to report in and to confirm that they weren't being abused by anyone? Would you be okay with that? I mean, it might help. Don't you think? I can't see why parents who aren't planning on abusing their kids would have any problems with some really minor reporting requirements. Why would they, unless they were doing something wrong?

[Shane]

The abuse that takes place by B&M teachers and other staff -where an abuser has been vetted, has the trust of peers, has opportunity to groom, and has ongoing access- is, likewise, not a reason to shut down B&M schools.

This is an example of the kind of false equivalence that you have used multiple times in this discussion.  I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I would ask that you more carefully think about comparisons you make in the future.

Bad things will happen from time to time anywhere that there are people.  That's why any large organization develops checks and balances to prevent these issues.  While not perfect, they exist for teachers in public schools.  They do not exist for parents who choose to home-school.  As such, the situation regarding abuse by an educator is completely different when comparing a public school with a home-school scenario.

I haven't been using false equivalencies, GuitarStv. I've made statements, each of which stand on their own. I think you may be adding relationships between my words that I don't intend.

I agree with what you're saying here: bad things happen anywhere.

I've been saying: Bad things happen in any context. No situation is safe/protected from the potential for abuse. All abuse is bad and ideally is prevented.

Some folks keen on B&M schools and opposed to homeschooling struggle with the idea of abuse happening despite B&M schooling or even in B&M schools. I don't. I recognize it happens in all places, that's all.

I think when we claim that B&M schools provide extra safety from abuse, we do all children a disservice. This idea results in more abuse being overlooked, dismissed, disregarded. The abuse I saw take place in the "safety" of the school system, despite reporting, was horrific.

We disagree about where there is more safety, wellness, and thriving. That's okay. I think my perspective is fair and balanced: I'm proposing we not shut down any form/place of school, and that we only shut down abuse, wherever it's occurring.

Lucky for this girl she was in a B&M school where there are checks and balances in place to make sure she doesn't get abused. God only knows what might have happened to her if she had been homeschooled. :)

[brooklynguy]

Agreed, religion is not an immutable characteristic. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees, ruling that, "although it is possible to change one's religion, it is not something a person should *have* to change," and is therefore considered immutable.

Can you post a citation? I just spent way too long trying to find such a SCOTUS quote. It is certainly not out there with these words, specifically.

@ormaybemidgets, Here's an article from the Yale Law Journal.

Notice that the article and the case law it dicusses are about discriminating against people on the basis of their religious beliefs, which, contrary to some of the assertions made upthread, is entirely different than contesting the merit of those beliefs themselves.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with stating that magic is not real or that dogmatic appeal to authority is a bad way to seek truth. 

[joonifloofeefloo]

Thanks very much, Trifele -and also Shane- for your follow up.

GuitarStv, there's a communication gap in our conversation, somehow. Yes, there are checks and balances for my child's wellness and safety.

[sol]

Yes, there are checks and balances for my child's wellness and safety.

While I don't dispute your assertion, I think gtsv has a point.  In a public school, each and every kid is guaranteed multiple personal interactions every single day with different adults who are each trained to identify the signs of abuse, in an environment in which professional therapists or social workers are always on hand.  There are mandatory evaluations.  There are statistics kept.  There are legal reporting requirements.

Home schooling just doesn't provide the same level of protection.  You CAN give your kids some of those safety checks, but you certainly aren't required to do so.  Technically, you can home school your kid while raping him/her every day and no one would have to know.  That just can't happen in a public school, surrounded by other kids and adults.

Which is not to say that home school might not confer other worthwhile benefits to specific kids with unusual needs.  Protection from abuse just isn't one of them.  I'm simply amazed that anyone would argue that the risk of abuse in a home schooled environment could possibly be lower than it is in a public school environment.

Let me rephrase that in a more direct way:  home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids. 

[GuitarStv]

Thanks very much, Trifele -and also Shane- for your follow up.

GuitarStv, there's a communication gap in our conversation, somehow. Yes, there are checks and balances for my child's wellness and safety.

I guess that I'm not explaining myself very well, and apologize if this is causing confusion.

FWIW - From what you've told me of your approach, I'm not particularly concerned about your child's safety.

Yes, there are checks and balances for my child's wellness and safety.

While I don't dispute your assertion, I think gtsv has a point.  In a public school, each and every kid is guaranteed multiple personal interactions every single day with different adults who are each trained to identify the signs of abuse, in an environment in which professional therapists or social workers are always on hand.  There are mandatory evaluations.  There are statistics kept.  There are legal reporting requirements.

Home schooling just doesn't provide the same level of protection.  You CAN give your kids some of those safety checks, but you certainly aren't required to do so.  Technically, you can home school your kid while raping him/her every day and no one would have to know.  That just can't happen in a public school, surrounded by other kids and adults.

Which is not to say that home school might not confer other worthwhile benefits to specific kids with unusual needs.  Protection from abuse just isn't one of them.  I'm simply amazed that anyone would argue that the risk of abuse in a home schooled environment could possibly be lower than it is in a public school environment.

Let me rephrase that in a more direct way:  home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids. 

The raping every day scenario can happen in a public school setting . . . but I suspect that it's more likely (and more quickly) to be discovered.

After doing some re-reading in this thread I think that the argument on the other side is that a loving parent (and well known friends of the loving parent) will be less likely to abuse a child than a stranger/teacher in the first place.  While homeschooling may have fewer protections, perhaps abuse happens less often so the protections are not as needed.

I haven't been able to find a comprehensive study that suggests conclusively either way.

[sol]

I think that the argument on the other side is that a loving parent (and well known friends of the loving parent) will be less likely to abuse a child than a stranger/teacher in the first place.

Abuse statistics suggest the exact opposite is true.  Parents and close family friends are the people MOST likely to abuse a child.

[joonifloofeefloo]

GuitarStv, thanks.

Technically, you can home school your kid while raping him/her every day and no one would have to know. That just can't happen in a public school, surrounded by other kids and adults.

This does happen with children who are B&M schooled (or schooled or not schooled in any other location/context) -attacked by parents at home, other people in any location, or peers or school staff at or outside of school with no one aware of what's taking place.

Often the other youth and adults around the child can see something seems "not right". A child is depressed or cutting or acting out. She's avoiding a certain class or washroom or part of the building. But because these symptoms and signs can occur for any number of reasons -many of those not abuse- no one can reasonably declare abuse. Just as often, an abused child appears happy, gregarious, and confident and his symptoms are "only" drinking excessively, bulimia, etc -dismissed as "teenage" experiences.

Until the abused child feels safe enough to speak, has someone safe enough to speak to, finds someone that believes her over others, and can provide evidence that satisfies those in authority, the abuse continues regardless.

This speaks well to my concern: When we believe a given structure is safe, we're more inclined to dismiss signs or reports that it's not. This is a common context for abuse to occur. The bias often occurs per neighbourhood, income level, religion, family structure, and other lifestyle variables. Too many assume x context is safe and x context is unsafe in terms of abuse. The assumption of safety, the belief that our systems work reasonably well, etc, are elements that support abuse to continue. We need to be careful there.

I would support abuse prevention (and resolution) education for every child everywhere. I believe informing and educating children re: abuse (identifying, achieving safety, reporting, etc) is more effective than hoping adults around her correctly assess symptoms.

[sol]

I would support abuse prevention (and resolution) education for every child everywhere.

I am not disagreeing with this sentiment, but I also find it woefully inadequate.  We don't place the responsibility for abuse prevention on the shoulders of the victims.  We need trained adults on the scene, and homeschooling does not guarantee that.

Do you also support abuse prevention and resolution training for all adults who work with kids?  I do.  I think it helps keeps kids safe. 

[ormaybemidgets]

Agreed, religion is not an immutable characteristic. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees, ruling that, "although it is possible to change one's religion, it is not something a person should *have* to change," and is therefore considered immutable.

Can you post a citation? I just spent way too long trying to find such a SCOTUS quote. It is certainly not out there with these words, specifically.

@ormaybemidgets, Here's an article from the Yale Law Journal. Here's the abstract:

ABSTRACT. Courts often hold that antidiscrimination law protects “immutable” characteristics, like sex and race. In a series of recent cases, gay rights advocates have persuaded courts to expand the concept of immutability to include not just those traits an individual cannot change, but also those considered too important for anyone to be asked to change. Sexual orientation and religion are paradigmatic examples. This Article critically examines this new concept of immutability, asking whether it is fundamentally different from the old one and how it might apply to characteristics on the borders of employment discrimination law’s protection, such as obesity, pregnancy, and criminal records. It argues that the new immutability does not avoid the old version’s troublesome judgments about which traits are morally blameworthy and introduces new difficulties by requiring problematic judgments about which traits are important. Ultimately, immutability considerations of both the old and new varieties distract from the aim of employment discrimination law: targeting unreasonable and systemic forms of bias.

Thanks @Shane. In summary, I have not found that the Supreme Court has ever said religion is immutable, or that immutability is defined as something a person should not "have to" change. Contrary to the article (because the decision was published after the article), SCOTUS has stated that sexual orientation is immutable - sort of, as the Court tends to, saying "only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable." I think many are predicting that the decision in the cake case might express their opinion on immutability, but it hasn't yet.

Sorry for the very off-topic post off the off-topic tangent.

[joonifloofeefloo]

Do you also support abuse prevention and resolution training for all adults who work with kids?  I do.  I think it helps keeps kids safe.

I do, absolutely. So much so that I took the training in four contexts :)    I would love to see this requirement for all adults -those working with kids, and parents, and everyone else. And given how many other, nonrelated adults the typical homeschooled kid hangs with every week, homeschooled kids would benefit from this just as much as B&M schooled kids would.

I agree that we cannot place responsibility on a victim. At the same time, teaching kids how to identify and name abuse and achieve safety regardless of what the adults around them are doing gets more kids to safety. The more we empower kids (too), the better.

I know some people don't want third-parties involved in their lives (having their home checked randomly and thoroughly, detailing their children's community contacts during summers off B&M school, etc). I'm one that would like to see homeschooling (as one option) continue and more actual safeties in place for all people, regardless of where they school, work, or play.

A follow-up article about the 13 children said the person that bought their previous house suspected the abuse, and the severity of it. Did she not report it???? Ack. Or did she report it and authorities did not follow through (a frequent occurrence)?? Or is the article inaccurate (a frequent occurrence)? I don't know. But according to articles, the severe abuse was suspected based on physical things. These children could have been saved earlier. This is often so, regardless of where children receive their schooling.

[joonifloofeefloo]

^

and the couples' California neighbors have since reported the Turpin children rarely went outside.

Also unreported??? Or reported and not followed through on by authorities??
These revelations distress me. People knew.

[Shane]

While it may well be true that, "home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids," cases where parents homeschool their children specifically to facilitate raping them are so vanishingly rare that it's not a good argument against homeschooling.

There are risks in life no matter what we choose to do. Children who go to B&M schools are, by definition, at greater risk of becoming victims of school shootings than are homeschooled kids. Think Columbine, Sandy Hook and all of the other schools where kids have gotten shot in recent years. Since the chances of any individual kid getting shot at school are pretty low, avoiding school shootings is a weak argument against B&M schooling. Based on my personal experiences meeting hundreds of homeschooling families both at home and since we've started traveling full time, the chances that a family is choosing to homeschool their kids specifically to facilitate raping or abusing them in some other way are about as high as the chances that a kid going to a B&M school will get killed in a school shooting, i.e. close to zero. Without some clear evidence of wrong doing on the part of homeschooling parents, they should be left alone to raise their kids as they like.

One of my brothers attended a STEM magnet program that was housed in an inner city school where strong arm robbery of kids' lunch money in the school restrooms was so common that my brother and his fellow science geek friends got to the point where they quit drinking anything before and during school for fear that they might have to use the restroom. In my brother's senior year of HS he decided to drop out, take the GED and enroll in college, after one of his classmates was killed in a drive-by shooting on the front steps of the school. A former co-worker who used to be a public school teacher in Memphis told me stories of the schools where she worked that had metal detectors and armed security guards at all entrances but yet, she said, somehow, kids still managed to smuggle knives and guns into the school...

[GuitarStv]

While it may well be true that, "home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids," cases where parents homeschool their children specifically to facilitate raping them are so vanishingly rare that it's not a good argument against homeschooling.

There are risks in life no matter what we choose to do. Children who go to B&M schools are, by definition, at greater risk of becoming victims of school shootings than are homeschooled kids. Think Columbine, Sandy Hook and all of the other schools where kids have gotten shot in recent years. Since the chances of any individual kid getting shot at school are pretty low, avoiding school shootings is a weak argument against B&M schooling. Based on my personal experiences meeting hundreds of homeschooling families both at home and since we've started traveling full time, the chances that a family is choosing to homeschool their kids specifically to facilitate raping or abusing them in some other way are about as high as the chances that a kid going to a B&M school will get killed in a school shooting, i.e. close to zero. Without some clear evidence of wrong doing on the part of homeschooling parents, they should be left alone to raise their kids as they like.

One of my brothers attended a STEM magnet program that was housed in an inner city school where strong arm robbery of kids' lunch money in the school restrooms was so common that my brother and his fellow science geek friends got to the point where they quit drinking anything before and during school for fear that they might have to use the restroom. In my brother's senior year of HS he decided to drop out, take the GED and enroll in college, after one of his classmates was killed in a drive-by shooting on the front steps of the school. A former co-worker who used to be a public school teacher in Memphis told me stories of the schools where she worked that had metal detectors and armed security guards at all entrances but yet, she said, somehow, kids still managed to smuggle knives and guns into the school...

Well yeah . . . children who attend a school are more likely to be shot at school than children who don't attend a school.  That would seem to follow.  :P  I'm not sure that this is an equivalent comparison you're making though.

There were 74.2 million children in the US as of the last census (http://www.aecf.org/resources/the-changing-child-population-of-the-united-states/).

Guns kill about .0013 million children in the US (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html) each year.  School shootings are a small percentage of that.

7.2 million kids were abused in 2015 (https://americanspcc.org/child-abuse-statistics/).  The majority of abuse is perpetrated by parents and caregivers of children (https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children).


Kids are therefore roughly 5,538 times more likely to be abused than shot (let alone shot at school) . . . and parents/caregivers are the ones doing most of the abuse.  Statistics would suggest then that it's likely a large number of children being home schooled are in fact being abused, so maybe a little oversight would be prudent.

[Shane]

@GuitarStv, While I agree that, theoretically, it makes sense to say that the more adults and kids outside of a child's family he is forced to interact with every day, the less likely it is that his family may be abusing him without anybody knowing about it. That sounds perfectly logical, but I'm not so sure that reasoning actually holds up in real life. In this thread suggestions for increased State oversight of homeschooling families were mostly along the lines of requiring them to submit evidence they were following an approved curriculum or requiring that the kids get tested periodically to make sure they are keeping up. I fail to see how either of those types of requirements would, necessarily, root out cases of abuse. They might, but it seems kind of unlikely to me. Don't you think?

Think about all of the thousands of cases of sexual abuse that have come out recently regarding the Catholic Church. How many stories have you heard of people who were repeatedly and regularly sexually abused by Catholic priests, some of them over the course of years and years, and nobody knew about it? I'd be willing to bet that most of those kids who were molested by priests all went to B&M schools where they were forced to interact with teachers, counselors, administrators, as well as other kids, every day for their while childhoods, and even with all those checks and balances, nobody knew those kids were getting raped by their local priest until decades later when they came out and told people about it when they joined class action lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

Increasing State oversight of homeschoolers would for sure be a pain in the ass for homeschooling families, but it seems unlikely to me that checking parents' lesson plans or requiring that parents hold certain credentials or testing the kids would in any way decrease the number of homeschooled kids who are being sexually abused by their parents. Some of the proposed oversight measures that have been suggested in this thread might make it more likely that homeschooled kids would keep up academically with the B&M schooled counterparts, but that they would have any effect, at all, on rates of sexual abuse seems pretty unlikely to me.

[One]

Put yourself in the kids shoes, I really like my parents but couldn't imagine having to spend my entire day with them as a youth. No socialization, no differing viewpoints, would rather lead by example, give good advice, have them do additional homework and hope for the best. I'm not passionate about it, just always thought home school kids were kinda weird. Kids have to learn through experience,good and bad.

[Lance Burkhart]

Kids are therefore roughly 5,538 times more likely to be abused than shot (let alone shot at school) . . . and parents/caregivers are the ones doing most of the abuse.  Statistics would suggest then that it's likely a large number of children being home schooled are in fact being abused, so maybe a little oversight would be prudent.

I think you're looking for the probability that the child is abused AND they were homeschooled.  The probability kids are abused by parents/caregivers is not the same thing.  For all you know, homeschooling parents are LESS likely to be abusers.  I have no data on this but neither do you.  You're trying to suggest a joint probability without doing the math.  Also, "parents/caregivers" can mean, "Mom and her loser boyfriend," or "mom and the stepdad" or "foster parents."  The people asking for more oversight over homeschool outside of this forum have suggested that many abuse parents actually pull their kids out of public school first and start homeschooling them because they've already had a visit from social workers and don't want to be caught again.

I think you're ignoring the fact that public school teachers are another source of abuse.  I went to high school with a guy who later got busted for sleeping with one of his students. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html

Is this another "false equivalence" - the only logical fallacy we're able to identify on this forum haha?

[GuitarStv]

Kids are therefore roughly 5,538 times more likely to be abused than shot (let alone shot at school) . . . and parents/caregivers are the ones doing most of the abuse.  Statistics would suggest then that it's likely a large number of children being home schooled are in fact being abused, so maybe a little oversight would be prudent.

I think you're looking for the probability that the child is abused AND they were homeschooled.  The probability kids are abused by parents/caregivers is not the same thing.  For all you know, homeschooling parents are LESS likely to be abusers.  I have no data on this but neither do you.  You're trying to suggest a joint probability without doing the math.

I wasn't able to find any comprehensive studies that show large population abuse rates by parents and prevalence of homeschooling.  The data we have suggests that that parents/caregivers of children abuse at roughly the same rates whether they do education at home or send kids to a school.  It's certainly possible that people who homeschool abuse at a lower (or higher) rate, but I don't have data to support using that hypothesis.

If you believe that I'm wrong, find better data.  I'm suggesting the most reasonable likelihood given the information available.  Not sure what math you believe is missing and needs to be done?

Also, "parents/caregivers" can mean, "Mom and her loser boyfriend," or "mom and the stepdad" or "foster parents." 

Yes.  These are all the people who would be involved in home schooling.

The people asking for more oversight over homeschool outside of this forum have suggested that many abuse parents actually pull their kids out of public school first and start homeschooling them because they've already had a visit from social workers and don't want to be caught again.

I don't have any real reason to believe that this is the case.

I think you're ignoring the fact that public school teachers are another source of abuse.  I went to high school with a guy who later got busted for sleeping with one of his students. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html

Is this another "false equivalence" - the only logical fallacy we're able to identify on this forum haha?

No, I'm not ignoring that abuse comes from other places too.  It has been brought up and agreed upon dozens of times in this thread that child abuse can happen just about anywhere, anytime, by anyone.

- We've already established that the majority of abuse comes from parents/caregivers.  Homeschooling is typically done by parents/caregivers.
- Less access to other caregivers makes it more difficult for a child to report abuse.  Homeschooling can be used to limit access to other caregivers.

These are the two reasons why it might make more sense to focus a little bit more on abuse and home schooling.

@GuitarStvIn this thread suggestions for increased State oversight of homeschooling families were mostly along the lines of requiring them to submit evidence they were following an approved curriculum or requiring that the kids get tested periodically to make sure they are keeping up. I fail to see how either of those types of requirements would, necessarily, root out cases of abuse. They might, but it seems kind of unlikely to me. Don't you think?

Yes, I agree.  The state oversight you're referring to is a separate concern - If you're home schooling a child in most states you're free to teach anything at all.  Some people believe that this is detrimental to kids and thus would prefer additional oversight.

Abuse related oversight would probably be better done otherwise, and I don't know the best way to do it.  Occasional unscheduled drop-ins, yearly medical/psychological evaluation, scheduled discussions with the children by social workers?

Think about all of the thousands of cases of sexual abuse that have come out recently regarding the Catholic Church. How many stories have you heard of people who were repeatedly and regularly sexually abused by Catholic priests, some of them over the course of years and years, and nobody knew about it? I'd be willing to bet that most of those kids who were molested by priests all went to B&M schools where they were forced to interact with teachers, counselors, administrators, as well as other kids, every day for their while childhoods, and even with all those checks and balances, nobody knew those kids were getting raped by their local priest until decades later when they came out and told people about it when they joined class action lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

The priests involved were given private access to large numbers of children and had effectively no oversight.  It's not dissimilar to a homeschooling scenario.  There was also quite a cultural taboo regarding talking about sex/homosexuality with children at the time that worked in the abusers favour.  It will never be possible to prevent all child abuse.  Even if a kid is going to school, the parents can still be abusing every night.  That said - more people around gives these children a slightly better chance to expose a problem . . . and that's a good thing.

[Lance Burkhart]

I wasn't able to find any comprehensive studies that show large population abuse rates by parents and prevalence of homeschooling.  The data we have suggests that that parents/caregivers of children abuse at roughly the same rates whether they do education at home or send kids to a school.  It's certainly possible that people who homeschool abuse at a lower (or higher) rate, but I don't have data to support using that hypothesis.

Up the thread, you said that homeschooled children are at greater risk of abuse for lack of people evaluating them for abuse.  Here, you're saying you have no data to back up this statement.  It may well be true, but at best you can say it requires further study. I am asserting that we could find that the rates of abuse by educators could be the same regardless of education method.  I had some high school teachers who were real pervs, the administration knew and did nothing about it.  Bureaucracies are known for some spectacular failures whether they know about problems or not.

You know which types of parents are more likely to abuse? Poor parents.  My point is you have to do some careful statistical analysis before you can truly know something.  You don't seem to be a statistician. 

[Lance Burkhart]

Sol sez, "Let me rephrase that in a more direct way:  home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids."

Where is the data proving this?  Do you have data that the abuse incidence amongst homeschooled kids is higher? 

[GuitarStv]

I wasn't able to find any comprehensive studies that show large population abuse rates by parents and prevalence of homeschooling.  The data we have suggests that that parents/caregivers of children abuse at roughly the same rates whether they do education at home or send kids to a school.  It's certainly possible that people who homeschool abuse at a lower (or higher) rate, but I don't have data to support using that hypothesis.

Up the thread, you said that homeschooled children are at greater risk of abuse for lack of people evaluating them for abuse.

I don't believe I said this.  Could you quote the post you're referring to?

[Poundwise]

I've only read the last page of this thread recently, but it seems to me, GuitarStv, that you could have been more specific about what kind of "false equivalence" you were talking about.

I think that the false equivalence is between different kinds of potential abuse:
- In a B&M school/other group setting such as coaching or scouts, it seems that the potential abuses will range from poor instruction quality, verbal abuse and humiliation by other students or authority figures (almost certainly the most common), to physical abuse/beatings (probably the rarest and most easily caught), to periodic/recurrent sexual abuse (most serious). 

The potentials for abuse outside the home are scary to a loving parent, because it feels that no matter how a good a parent you yourself try to be, you can't completely control the possibility that an aide at the nursery school might molest your toddler,  that the kids in your son's third grade class might bully him at recess, or that your teen daughter's beloved skating coach might slyly groom her for years of abuse. If you know that you yourself are good, then you can cut down on this potential abuse 100% by keeping your kids at home.

- Homeschooling abuse could include all of the above, and at its worst, could also include crazy stuff like starvation, imprisonment, severe beatings, with a higher frequency and permanence than a child would get by attending school... school abuse will be periodic and temporary, but a homeschooled child can't get away from the abusive home for any respite.

So the potential abuses are much more severe in homeschooling, which leads pro-B&M school advocates to fear the consequences of unregulated homeschooling. If you are a good teacher or coach, you know that kids from sketchy homes can be safe while they are with you, they can get a good free lunch and maybe breakfast at school, and watchful reporting can rescue a few from abusive homes.

The only sure way to prevent and stop abuse is to make sure that many eyes are on the kids at all times, and that the kids know how to speak up.  It's a puzzle: kids ought to  have access to a variety of trusted adults in whom they can confide; yet the introduction of each new adult brings a certain (hopefully low) probability that they will be an abuser.

Maybe homeschool families ought to at the minimum, submit their kids to annual testing/interviews... nothing too severe, just  checking for progress over the previous year in basic literacy/math, and maybe a 15 minute chat to hear about what the kids studied that year. That wouldn't help with the abuse, but it might help parents and school systems make better academic choices. Also every homeschooling kid ought to take a short class every year informing them about their rights over their own bodies, basic safety, and how to report any issues (as should regular school children).

I think the best solution is to move away from the all-or-nothing mindset (constant testing and ignoring individual student variations in the public schools, absolutely no regulation of homeschooled students) to providing a range of compromises that would bring oversight and standards to homeschoolers, yet allow for more presence and roles of parents.

[Poundwise]

[split into two posts because of wall-of-text]

My personal experience is having my child in a public school system where over 60% of children came from near or below the poverty level, some of whom lived in the projects or were homeless, and who had very different needs from our family. I seriously considered homeschooling, but in the end, the best solution was for me to join the PTA. Although I poured 30 hours a week into the school, it was a wonderful life-changing experience, personally speaking. In three short years, the PTA helped bring many enrichment programs such as cooking classes, Science Fair, Health Fair, college planning info for parents, and after school classes to all the children.  We wrote grants, raised funds, and lobbied local government for resources, and also set up a culture of parental participation which appears to have lived on. Although we have since moved on, my son and I are still in contact with many families from that school. My son had no academic issues keeping up with a top-rated suburban school system after our move.

I think that most homeschooling comes from a perceived mis-fit between the family and the community.  In those cases where parents feel that the school will not/has not provided sufficient academic challenge, I encourage them to try sticking with the public schools a year or two and trying to make them a little better, before moving on.  You might be surprised at how much you can accomplish.

[joonifloofeefloo]

I really enjoyed your post(s), Poundwise. Thank you for those.

Some thoughts bouncing off them...

When I was considering how many different classes, groups, leaders, medical professionals, community members, and teachers my (homeschooled) son was with yesterday alone, I was thinking the ideal includes introducing new people. Sometimes a "community system" (e.g., family, or B&M school, or neighbourhood, or church) is too tight, with people protecting each other. Sometimes it's only the person brought in newly or occasionally that is willing to speak up, mess with the status quo -so bringing in new people can increase risk of abuse but it can also decrease it.

None of the schools my kid has been eligible for do free meals, so that part wouldn't be resolved for kids in areas we've lived in, unfortunately.

Of further tragic note, the latest article on the 13 imprisoned children said their space was subject to an annual visit by the fire marshall -no records for such visits have been located. At B&M schools and nonB&M schools, we have so many systems for regulation, yet so often these aren't implemented. Maybe we need to focus more on implementation of the systems already set up.

I wonder if we should have different words/phrases for homeschooling in which a child is fully engaged with a wide community, homeschooling that is used as a cover for imprisonment, and variables in between. The term "homeschooling" seems too broad to be able to discuss effectively. In this thread, it seems like the term is used to talk about a very wide range of scenarios. More effective would be to have separate threads, one talking about child imprisonment, one talking about other forms of child abuse (regardless of school location), one talking about unregulated nonacademic schooling, one talking about curriculum-based study-at-home, etc.

[sol]

Sol sez, "Let me rephrase that in a more direct way:  home schooled kids are at a greater risk of sexual abuse by predatory adults than are public school kids."

Where is the data proving this?  Do you have data that the abuse incidence amongst homeschooled kids is higher?

Do you agree that the incidence of abuse goes down when everyone in an educational setting, child and adult, gets regular and comprehensive training in abuse prevention and identification?

Do you agree that public schools are legally required to provide such training, while home schools are not?

Do you agree that qualified professional social workers and therapists are better at dealing with these issues than the average American adult?  Do agree that these qualified professionals are consistently employed in public schools, and not in home schools?

Do you agree that public school curriculums are publicly evaluated to ensure they include subject matter about growth and development and personal safety, while home school curriculums are not?

Do you agree that all public school employees are legally required to undergo background checks, while home school instructors are not?

Do you agree that the vast majority of child sexual abuse victims are abused by a parent or close family friends and not by a public school staffer?

I feel like I am not the one who should be required provide potentially non-existent data on child abuse occurrence in home schoolers.  Public schools have extensive prevention policies in place that home schools do not.  I believe these policies help, and that circumventing them increases the risk of abuse.

Imagine two neighboring states, one with a motorcycle helmet law and one without.  Just because nobody has tallied the motorcycling fatalities for home schoolers compared to public schoolers does not mean that riding without a helmet is just as safe as riding with one.  Home schoolers are metaphorically riding without a helmet, because they do not have the same legally required protections in place.

[robartsd]

Do you agree that the incidence of abuse goes down when everyone in an educational setting, child and adult, gets regular and comprehensive training in abuse prevention and identification?

I hope so, but I have not seen actual data to back up this claim. Seems like a reasonable hypothisis to study.

Do you agree that public schools are legally required to provide such training, while home schools are not?

Yes.

Do you agree that qualified professional social workers and therapists are better at dealing with these issues than the average American adult?

Most likely, yes.

Do agree that these qualified professionals are consistently employed in public schools, and not in home schools?

No. In my experience these professionals might be referred to by public schools, but are not employed there. Most public schools I've had experience have a nurse present a few hours a week at best.

Do you agree that public school curriculums are publicly evaluated to ensure they include subject matter about growth and development and personal safety, while home school curriculums are not?

Most likely, yes.

Do you agree that all public school employees are legally required to undergo background checks, while home school instructors are not?

Yes.

Do you agree that the vast majority of child sexual abuse victims are abused by a parent or close family friends and not by a public school staffer?

Yes. I believe this is largely due to the development of a trusted relationship which gets violated. Most pupils in public school are in a class of 20+ students with a teacher ~5 hours a day, ~5 days a week, ~9 months before moving to a class with a different teacher. I expect the rate of abuse by public school staff would go up as time spent with the staffer by a particular student goes up and/or group size that interacts with the staffer goes down.

I feel like I am not the one who should be required provide potentially non-existent data on child abuse occurrence in home schoolers.  Public schools have extensive prevention policies in place that home schools do not.  I believe these policies help, and that circumventing them increases the risk of abuse.

Imagine two neighboring states, one with a motorcycle helmet law and one without.  Just because nobody has tallied the motorcycling fatalities for home schoolers compared to public schoolers does not mean that riding without a helmet is just as safe as riding with one.  Home schoolers are metaphorically riding without a helmet, because they do not have the same legally required protections in place.

I feel like your argument is not strong enough to support your claim for a need to regulate homeschoolers without evidence - certainly not to the extent that some have suggested in this thread.