I would like to know everyones thought's on this matter...

Is it right for if a child does not attend school in some states, for the law to get involved?

I believe that even know to survive in life, we still need education, but if the person see's it differently, i do think he/she should be able to not have to attend school.

Such programs have been started where I am from in New York, called the PINS program (People in need of supervision). I hate this idea, if a student doesnt choose to attend school that family court will get involved with the matter and could lead to that kid living and getting made to go to school each and every day, by the law.

Please, tell me your thought's. Thanks.

Almost every state requires a child to attend school until they are 15 or 16, and a few until the age of 18.

There are a few good reasons for this. Most places, you cannot even get a job at 15 or 16, at least in my state, because of child labor laws, without a special work permit. Even then, most places won't hire you unless you are in school, or have at least a GED, or high school diploma.

If at say, 16, someone wanted to quit high school, because they were advanced, and wanted to get to college early, I could understand it. I could also see allowing it because they don't want to go to college, but they are enrolling in a technical or trade school of some kind, because they already know what they want to do with their life.

But to let them quit, just because they don't want to go to school? Sorry. If we did that, half (or more) of our schools would be empty. There would be nothing for any of these kids to do, and in my opinion, would simply increase a lot of the problems we already have. Teenage drug use, pregnancies, and crime would all go up, I fear.

And with no diploma, I can tell you for a fact, most are not going to be getting jobs of any kind, much less jobs that pay a decent wage. It has been said that a diploma only shows that you know how to look up an answer. Maybe so, maybe not, but as an employer, I can tell you that I'm not going to hire anyone without seeing some kind of commitment to learning what it takes to make it in the world. And education is a big part of that. After all, if they can't be bothered to stick around school and learn the basics, what kind of commitment are they going to have to learning what needs to be learned at my job?

I agree, Nite. While there are some parents who come from traditional cultures who might disagree that a high school education is necessary, the fact is that in this country it is paramount to have at least a high school diploma if not some additional education to become a self sustained citizen. If nothing else, a high school graduate has proven that he or she can be depended on to finish a task, and has shown the capacity to learn skills which he or she will need in the future. Without demonstrating that capacity, a person had little or no future.

Yes, But it's what "That" person wants to do, this isnt a crime, as in drugs, violence, etc.

It is 18 where i am from. They Just changed this law. I do not agree with it. im 16 and i have a wonderful job, 7 dollars and hour...for a 16 yr old that seems pretty good doesnt it?

Maybe the kid is not smart enough, and cant move on from a 7 dollar job to a totaly better paying job...This is not about me not being able to do so, because i in fact can and i will, but it is about others whom may not be able to do so.

Actually i agree on the subject of truancy

I think the law needs to get involved when students dont attend school unless they have proper reasons. Students NEED to go to school and get a education. Most of the people who are on the streets during school hours are trouble makers and hoodlums that jsut run around spray painting. The Truancy will keep this child in line until the child when ready, will be ready for the big time. The child of course needs a say in this matter do to the reason it is HIM. However I dont think the penalities should be stiff for being a "truant" but should equal a few hundred dollars. This will show the student who is really in charge of the law and the education. After all the state is paying for all public educations and money may be cut by students who are truent. So in a short form, i believe students who are truent should be held accountable the the truancy law

Jimbo,

I'm 21, and I have a job that pays fifteen dollars an hour. Even if I worked 40 hour weeks, I'd still only make $600 a week and about $30k a year. And to get this job took a high school diploma and 2 years of college. But I'm still in college looking forward to a job that pays at least $50k a year because that's the minimum I'd need to be able to buy a house, a car and still have money to eat. 7 dollars an hour may seem like a lot to you now, but that's because you still live with your parents. If you stay at your job when you have rent, groceries, clothes, and a car to pay for, you'll wish you had stayed in school and held out for something better.

I understand that, but i am just trying to talk about the Subject of it. I am not saying that it is me who wants to drop out of school, but over this past 3 weeks, ive gotten into deep trouble with the law, on the subject on not goen to school or not. I had a few motivation problems, i must say. But i have gotten over these troubled problems and would like to start over and have a great job in life. I was just proclaiming that 7 dollars acttually is good for a 16 year old kid, ya know. But It is all good, and i am back at school, and will achieve what i am capable to do.

I beg to differ, you don't need $50k a year. You probably already have a car, and you don't need a new one right away? so all you would be paying for it most likely is insurance. And if you did buy a car, you have the option of leasing it. Monthly payments are not that bad. You don't need a house right away, live in an apartment a couple of years. save your money and invest, then you can buy your house. you will have plenty of money to buy food also. So I don't think $50k a year is the minimum you would need to make. Also, you can take a loan from the bank.

Ya, up here, 16 dollars an hour is considered the minumum needed to rent, own a 5 year old used car, pay for health insurance and eat, and have like a 100 bucks left over a month. Think about that and your 7 bucks an hour LOL

Truancy is a big problem in education and I don't think schools or society take it seriously enough. But I think we are looking at the wrong end of the scale.

The real crime is that some parents won't take or get their kids to school regularly. There is a major value to education and a seven year-old can't be held accountable for knowing that. However if that seven year-old's parents have that child with a 33% truancy rate, his education isn't going to be pretty worthless as he gets to the age where he can try to make a pretty logical decision about education.

I think education should be viewed in part as a privilege. I say if you think you know enough at the age of 16 that dropping out is in your best interest, then out with you. Schools should expel children 16 and over that won't attend school regularly enough. My school is in the process of doing that right now with one of our students. ( Private school)

This student may be expelled and lose this year's tuition ($10K) and take six years of similar tuition and trade it in for a GED.

As in all situations there needs to be a process where individual cases must be taken into account. But truancy is a problem in education and sending your child to school only when it is convenient hurts that child's education and deprives them of one of the most important skills in life, the ability to show up every day.

Agreed, I haven't been paid $7 an hour for almost 20 years now, I couldn't survive on it and neither could Jimbo if he was actually paying his own way (ie. rent, food, medical expenses, insurance, car, etc). Sure, it seems rosy when you have no expenses, but $7 is embarassingly low (barely above minimum wage).

Unfortunately, people without an education really can't look forward to much better than that and it is in the best interest of society to ensure that we keep people off the welfare rolls, hence requiring everyone under the age of 18 to attend school full time should absolutely be required, no exceptions.

You Guys have to think for a moment here. Think about when you were about 15-16 years of age. $7 would be great pay, for just those years thats it, because yes, you are still liveing with your parents, and there really is no need for expences. '

So what i was trying to say was that at my age, just turning 16, i believe the money i make is quite good, (for right now). Yes, i know that everyone still needs a education to do better than average in life and im doing that , now.

Take a quick moment and notice where his location is. Santa Cruz, CA. $30k plenty? Hardly. Poor guy probably eats mac 'n cheese a lot.

I live just one state over where the taxes are much lower but real estate is rapidly climbing to that of CA. I'm 25, my base pay is 28K but have never made less than 37K at this job due to overtime, profit sharing, etc... That's a pretty good wage for this area, but there's still no way I can afford to buy a house. The average rent for apartments is around $600 a month, however the average house payment on a very good interest rate is about $1200 a month. Possible with a second income? Of course. But I don't have that luxury.



I'm a bit puzzled by this comment. Yes, you will be taking out a loan from the bank to purchase a house. If you could buy a house outright, there wouldn't even be a discussion here.....

Anyway, back to the topic. At first glance, having the local government step in just because you're not going to school seems ridiculous and I'm sure I felt that way when I was 16. Fast forward 9 years later and I realize that they have a vested interest in keeping kids in school. Non-educated, non-diploma'd 18 year olds have a few options:

1. Low paying job(you will most likely not be buying any real estate)
2. Welfare, disability, unemployment...etc
3. Crime
4. Realize you need to go back and get some education

Let's take a look at these individually:

1. Nothing necessarily wrong with this one, but I bet the city would love to see people paying property taxes on a home instead of having millions of apartment complexes soaking up all that money.

2. These are out of control as it is, although welfare reform has fixed most of the "career welfare moms", disability is easy to get if you know how to do it and can live better off than I can in my current job. Huge money sinks for the state(some have it under control better than others of course).

3. Crime is not only costly to the police, don't forget the courts, rehab programs, probation departments, and possibly insurance companies. Let's not leave out the victimes here as well....

4. This is where they should be ideally, only reason I threw it in.

So, I believe the law does need to get involved here. I like to keep government out of my life in most cases, but there are situations where I think more good comes out of it than bad. This is one of them.

So what does $7 an hour have to do with truancy? Unless you want to be making $7 an hour in another 10 years, an education is vitally important for *EVERYONE*.

I'm not seeing a reason to stop the state from forcing minors to attend school.

Ataal writes:


Considering that the median home price in California is over $350k, you'd need to make $116k per year to afford it People simply don't understand how ridiculously expensive it is to live in California. 30k here is borderline poverty in many areas.

Thanks Ataal, but I don't get to eat mac and cheese but once a week or so. Usually its bread crusts and peanuts.

Seriously though, this is one of those areas where some people honestly don't know what's good for them and have to be told. Forcing minors to go to school benefits society as a whole. I understand that school sucks, it's boring, there are things to do that are much more fun, but teenagers need to learn ASAP that you can't always do what you want to. Needs have got to come before wants.

In today's society you not only need a high school education you need a college education to make it. I do understand what Jimbo is saying. Yes 7.00 an hour for a high schooler is pretty good. Just about 2.00 over minimun wage.
But as for truancy the govenment has to get involved, when these kids that are 15, 16, 17 and no high school diploma even older and are only making 7.00 an hour they will have to rely on their parents and live at home. There is no way on earth they could afford a car payment and insurance on the car. Ok maybe that they could. But try to live on their own. Now you have rent utilities car payment. car insurance food home insurance and health insurance. They will not come close to covering those kind of bills. Yeah a lot of kids think they can do it but they are kids and don't think it all the way out. And at age 15 16 17 you are in the I know it all stage. Believe me I was that age once and I thought I knew it all.
Stay in school get your diploma and hopefully some college education. You will be way better off and much happier.

Of course it's right! If kids can just, skip school they will not get good jobs. If they don't get good jobs, then we have more unskilled laborers, and if we have more unskilled laboreres that means we are short skilled laborers. Stupid kids are never a good thing. They don't have the right to put this country in danger.

CP

Consevpat, going to school doesn't make you smart. Likewise, not going to school doesn't make you dumb. School doesn't give you intelligence, you develop that all on your own. What school does is make you memorize hundred and hundreds of things over the course of a dozen years, a miniscule percentage of which will actually be of any use to you after you graduate. Right now, the only purpose I see for school/taking advanced courses is to score high on the almighty SATs/ACTs, and then you can go through college where they force feed you other things that you will never need to use in the course of your life, but on a much smaller scale because you have a major, something specific to focus on. I do believe a person should be well-rounded, and sufficiently skilled in a variety of things, however, I think twelve years of it is a bit excessive.

I don't think schooling should be mandatory, forced upon every single citizen until they turn 16, or whatever the legal drop-out age is. I believe it would be best for society if most people attended, but it shouldn't be forced upon everyone. There are some people whom it would just be pointless and redundant. For example, there's a guy, Steve, who sits behind me in trig class. He is a genius in every sense of the word. He sits in class, draws with his headphones on, walks in the day of the test and gets a perfect score. Not to mention he completes it in less than five minutes. I asked him the other day if he was going to college, and he responded "what would be the point?" Then I thought about that. For someone as bright as he is, it wouldn't make sense to spend thousands and thousands of dollars over four years for an education he could easily teach himself in probably less than a month.

My point is that there are some people for whom school is just pointless, because they are so bright they have no use for teachers. I asked him why he still came to class, and he said he didn't know. He might drop out next semester. So I asked him about his job prospects, and he told me last Tuesday he made over a hundred dollars selling Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Now I was a bit skeptical of his "career" choice, but if it works, and it makes good money, who am I to frown on him simply because he doesn't need a doctorate to do it?

It is a trait of teenagers to believe that they may not need teachers or an education. We all need teachers wherever we find them in life.

An education is not just about getting grades and having an arsenal of information to use later. It is also about the discipline of showing up and doing the work. This does not take a certain level of intelligence and it does not return equal grades for all who put in the work. But there is a reward to it.

The aggregate statistics are undeniable that there is value in education for individuals and for society.

Your friend Steve obviously could be doing better in terms of working. Instead of applying energy into selling cards for a hundred dollars, he could be building up an application to get into an ivy league school and earning a degree where he might look forward to earning $100 dollars an hour, or even more important finding rewarding ways to improve our society in his own way.

Tuning out your own education is generally self-defeating or self-limiting. There are of course some geniuses that transcend this reality and do not fit into formal education, but remember the Einstein ended up at Princeton. Also the probability of an individual having that level of genius is very low statistically. Maybe Steve is, but probably not.

In life we will always have ways of convincing ourselves to give less than our best efforts. But it helps when the people and society around us push us down the path of trying to make that effort.

I say this in advice, but I lecture like the teacher I now am. School came easy for me and I hid in easier classes and took the easy path. I am happy today, but I could have tried to achieve more in my academic career and tried to open so doors that only are available to student achievers.

Drop outs get there educations as do those who stay in school. And we as the students are the primary agents of that education in real and metaphorical classrooms.

Steve reminds me a lot of myself in my pre-calc (Trig class with the convenient name to cover more things) days. Not necessarily the genius part, but the "Hey, look at me, I can get an 'A' on a test and not even study for it." part. I would never take notes, and always skip homework assignments that I didn't feel like doing. To others, it truly seemed that I didn't care....

What people didn't know, including my teacher, was that before every test, I was up studying for hours on end.

The point I'm trying to make is, there is nothing redundant about trigonometry. It is mostly all new information, and someone cannot be blind to that information, walk in, and get an 'A' on the test. That person at least has to have a gist for whats going on.

In which case, I argue, that school is not pointless. All the information your recieving is new from the last year. You can be bright (or not bright) to the point of having school seem pointless, but there are always new things to learn (as lame as that may sound).

Suzy,
Your right there are some kids who are very bright but not that many.
But what about the huge number of drop-outs. And it is a huge number.
What kind of job will they get?
How on earth can they survive on their own without at LEAST a high school diploma? So they get a job paying a little over mininum wage. Say 7.00 an hour. What can they afford? A car payment and "maybe" car insurance since being say 16 their car insurance is is out of this world.
In this real world today to make it you need at least a high school diploma and with that you will be on the low income area. You would have to get a second job.
And that is if you don't have a family to support. God forbid you would have to have a least 3 jobs.

I hate to break it to you (and you can relay this to your supposedly bright friend) but employers don't look at IQ scores when considering people for a job; they look for the requisite skills and abilities. I used to be much like this friend you describe, and you know what, I couldn't get hired anywhere. Nobody cares that my IQ is high or that I have an incredible ability to think on the fly. Nor should they. The greatest gift a child can receive is the ability to think critically. Some acquire this at a young age. But this is only one of the tools required to interpret and understand and participate in the world at large. The others (knowledge models, frameworks of understanding, communications skills, manners [extremely important], and most of all experience) have to be learned from others who know. That is what the education process is for.

Stern lecture aside, the issue of truancy is a tricky one. While attending school is important, sitting front and center for every single class isn't quite so necessary. I think a little bit of skipping is actually beneficial in a couple of ways. First and foremost it allows a student to learn about the consequences of neglecting study (assuming it is handled professionally by the teacher involved.) Secondly, it does in a way allow for a student to develop time management skills that are associated with university. Try as you might, it is impossible nowadays to be a university student and attend every single class, finish every assignment, and maintain some sort of social life; all of which are critical to have. By identifying how to handle outside AND inside the classroom, a student is better prepared for the time constraints that they will face in post-secondary studies.

I could only wish for an open university, not a gulag. But even if i was to seriously go for graduate school, i would still find myself under directed study. I am not going to lie and say i have perfect attendance, the classes i enjoy i do, but the others i just miss a few times a quarter There is way to many people to try and curtail systems to individual needs perfectly, public schools are packed and most likely not funded or directed well enough most the time, some universities are trying new methods, but i don’t like those either, but i do imagine some students will.

As for the real world, i do think high school starting at middle or junior high should offer more valuable education towards the real world, as options for students, simple things like opening trade classes or such to students at the local ctc or cc or vocational school, or try to make school something people want to be at and understand why. High school by itself does not really equip people to apply for jobs upon graduation, at least none that require training or experience. I do like that certain companies do allow for internships through public schools, but overall i feel the system is lacking in some respects, does not fully allow for awareness on why education in important, this coupled with the social factors that come with education. I feel that truancy would be a difficult thing to purge.

An employer isn't going to be interested in Steve's supposed intelligence, they're going to ask if he has a high school diploma. They're going to ask if he has a college degree. If he doesn't, they're going to find someone that does. Selling Yu-Gi-Oh cards doesn't look good on a resume, sorry.

In high school I never studied and made nothing but A's. But when I got to college I truely learned how to study. Why? Because after Calculus 1 math really starts to get difficult, espicially proof classes . I say this just to point out that because you are smart in high school doesn't mean you will be able to grasp upper level college courses. I know plenty of people who were super stars in high school, 1300+ on the SAT, and top 10% that failed out after two years (I went to Georgia Tech).

Oh good thread.
I'll speak up here because I have a checkered high school history.
I was one of the ones who skipped school, often. But to whomever mentioned it, I was not a hoodlum or doing any spraypainting. Anyway, the policy at the school I was attending was to expell the student for non-attendance. I was expelled as a Freshman at 14 years old. I then returned to school the following year. I had good intentions but returned to my old ways of skipping school. Was expelled again, this time at 15. The following year I chose to enroll in an alternative school. I did very well here. I was making up credits, I enjoyed the teachers, the classes were smaller, the days shorter, the curriculum much more interesting. I attended school and then had time to work after school. The entire atmosphere was different at this school. It was laid back, no peer groups, the teachers knew we we chose to attend the school and came with issues. They seemed to care, they knew this was our last shot.

To make a long story short, right after I turned 17 my parents decided to move out of state. I quit school. After I moved I just never went back to school.

Now, the story I want to convey about dropping out of school is that it is a hard life. We don't see that when we are young. We think we'll make it somehow. It is hard and the jobs that are out there are the ones no one wants. The ones that tear your body up with endless labor work or the ones that burn you out because of the redundancy of the mindless work. Really, it's not a good life. I worked for about 10 years in the same line of work, my only skill, until I herniated two disks in my neck. Now I can no longer do labor work and I must obtain some skill to find something I can do. It is very frustrating because most of the careers I am interested in would take me years to complete due to my lack of education and not having taken the classes in highschool. The math alone would take a few years to catch up on. The choices we make when we are young effect us so very much when we get older and realize what we could have done and what we could have been. I am only telling this story to convey the importance of an education. I hope anyone who is considering dropping out listens.

Now to the question of the law getting involved in the issue of truancy. I'm not sure what I think about that. What would happen to a child who refused to attend school? Juvenille hall maybe? I don't think that's a good idea. I don't see that as an encouragement for them to learn. I think obtaining an education is the main idea right? Not just having thier butt planted in a chair? The entire country benefits from educated people. The student and the general population. But I guess then no one would be manning Mickey D's.

pheeler said:

I think this general line of reasoning is what justifies truancy and compulsory education laws. But what if we apply this same line of thinking elsewhere? Regular exercize is good for you too, and could definitely benefit society as a whole if everyone practiced it. It would cut down on healthcare costs, etc. In fact, it's difficult to imagine an aspect of our lives that would not be positively impacted were everyone to adopt a good exercize regimen. So why not pass a law requiring it of each individual? Eating right is also a good and beneficial thing that, if practiced by everyone, would benefit society as a whole. So again, let us enforce such beneficial behavior by law.

The question should not be, "what is the social benefit?", the question should be, "what are our rights?" Or more importantly, what is the role of government and what should its just powers be? I don't think it is the government's role to prescribe and enforce its own standards of "fitness" -- whether physical or academic.

Until the age of eighteen, children are (usually) the legal responsibility of their parents. Therefore, the question,"what are our rights?" isn't so simple concerning minors. A person has the 'right' to decide to forego an education as soon as they reach the age of autonomy.

Neglecting a child's education is abuse, and we have laws against that.

But isn't it the right of the parents to raise their child as they see fit? Isn't this an issue of parental rights?


That's a dangerous statement to make. According to your ideology and your goals for your children, this may be the case. But not everyone has the same goals or views. And it isn't for government to coerce people to conform to your views. Abuse should not be defined according to someone's own opinion of what a person should have growing up, whether it be a particular type of education, types of possessions, etc. Abuse should only be an issue when there is actual physical abuse that threatens the life of the child, or perhaps some kinds of psychological abuse -- but the latter is also very touchy in that one person's psychological abuse is another person's religious views, etc.

A parent is free to homeschool their child. Raising them with no education is setting them up for failure. It is absolutely abuse to prevent a child from learning, just as withholding their ability to walk or speak would be abuse. In such a case, the question would not be 'what are your rights?' but 'what are your rights over the welfare of another individual?'. In which case, I would say that the right of the child to have a chance at a future in society usurps the right of the parent to raise an ignorant child.

But if you venture into this abyss, you must define of what an "education" consists. Does it consist of "sex education"? Sensitivity training? Physical education? Sports? Physics? Chemistry? Condom usage? What? For this to be legally enforcable, now you've got to establish legal academic standards. So now you have the government defining what education is and is not which will eventually amount to a government prescribed general curriculum. It's not a far jump from government issued curricula to complete government control over education.

Sure, this chain of events doesn't take place all at once, but it's the logical progression of things. Once somebody calls up child services, the subsequent ruling becomes legal precedent. If the precedent becomes a restrictive one as you suggest it should, then legislation will likely be passed to require certain educational elements of each potential student. Then it's only a matter of refinement until we get micro-managed control even of private education since, after all, while the school is private, the student him/herself is subject to public laws and academic requirements, thereby obligating the school to teach what the government dictates.

Don't all schools have certain mandatory requirements, decided by each individual state? Apparently, education has already ventured into this 'abyss'. Somehow, condom usage skills are not compulsory, but a basic education is...not quite the slippery slope you live on. The logic here seems to follow that I say "a parent shouldn't force their child to live in a box" and you say,"Do you want the government to regulate the living area of every child?" somewhere, there's a reasonable line between permitting gross educational neglect and mandating sensitivity training courses in grade school.

Yes, but those are state-run schools. I'm not aware of any similar requirements on private and home schools.


That's because we haven't begun down that road yet. Private and home schools are still free (last I checked) to set their curriculum as they see fit.


That's not really the same thing. For instance, Amish communities may want to educate their children under much difference circumstances, over much different subjects, and during much different ages than is practiced by public schools. And it should be their right to do so. I don't think the government should require those children in Amish communities to conform to the State's (or worse, the federal government's) idea of what sort of educational regimen they should have. I seem to recall a court case many years ago that dealt with this very issue.

The states have guidelines for homeschooling and private schools, too. Since there is no public funding, their requirements aren't quite so encompassing (especially extracurricularly), but they most definitely have basic requirements as well, even for the Amish (Pennsylvania link) .

Yes and no, Orat.

I believe you'll find that most states still have some regulation over private and home-schools.

For instance, you are correct in that they can set any non-state required curricula that they wish. They can also choose which textbooks to use, etc.

But when living in Florida, and now in Illinois, the state does require home schooled and private school children be able to pass the state core-competency exams. Kids here in Illinois, anyway, are tested at 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 10th grades. I think they also require an exam in 12th grade be passed in order to graduate, regardless of "school grades".

This is done to ensure that all kids at least have the basics of math, english, science, history, etc. completed. Anything else the home school wants to teach is entirely up to the school, however.

Mrs. Pigpen:

Hmmm... I thought most states had lightened up in the past few years... what a shame. Some states are more heavy-handed than others. I know when I was growing up being homeschooled it was illegal in many states. But truthfully I don't think these regulations are really enforced much. At least not where it is legal.

NiteGuy:

Yes, to be recognized as having graduated highschool, you do have to take a GED or possibly some kind of alternative exam. But setting criteria for certain types of certification is very different from hauling parents to prison for not teaching a state-mandated subject.

Hi,

You don't have to take a standardized test in Florida to homeschool or follow a standardized curriculum. You can be evaluated by a teacher each year, or register with a private school that doesn't require testing, grades or transcripts.

There are around 10 states that have no requirements for homeschoolers at all. Some you do not even have to register. Texas is one of them. Interesting that they don't have any more problems with truants than other states.

You can read about other states here:
http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/di.../Legalities.htm

Here are some interesting thougths on diploma's and credentials:

http://www.unschooling.com/library/faq/index.shtml

http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/ex...e/teensites.htm

http://learninfreedom.org/colleges_4_hmsc.html

http://www.home-ed-magazine.com/HEM/HEM152..._clmn_tkch.html

http://www.nhen.org/nhen/pov/teens/default.asp?id=4%20


RELATED BOOKS:

The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and Education 1991 Grace Llewellyn -

Real Lives: Eleven Teenagers Who Don't Go to School 1993
Grace Llewellyn -

John Holt - Instead of Education
Growing Without Schooling : A Record of a Grassroots Movement
A Life Worth Living : The Selected Letters of JohnHolt by Susannah Sheffer(Editor)

Cafi Cohen - And What About College? How Homeschooling Leads to Admissions to the Best Colleges and Universities 1997

John Bear and Mariah Bear - Bear's Guide to Earning College Degrees nontraditionally 1995

College Degrees by Mail 1997 : 100 Accredited Schools That Offer Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorates, and Law Degrees by Home Study

Judy Gelner - College Admissions: A guide for Homeschoolers 1988

Ronald Gross - The Independent Scholar's Handbook 1982

Charles D. Hayes - Proving You're Qualified: Strategies for Competent People without Degrees 1995

Marcie Kisner Thorson - Campus-Free College Degrees


Peterson's Distance Learning 1997 Published by Peterson's Guides