OT-CA homeschooling ruling

[barkley]

It's not an abuse issue.
Attempting to revoke the rights of all CA parents to choose an educational path for their own children has nothing to with child abuse. if an accusation was made,and substantiated,then said children should be removed from the home.
How an education is carried out has VERY little to do with actual abuse cases.
And for the folks that perceive the all powerful public schools as the eyes that watch over and protect our kids ....come ON! If that was true,then there'd be no bullying/drug use/gang/dropout problem-not to mention the very real problem of so many dismally undereducated children in America.
The only reason I point this out is that is is not ,and never has been the job of an administration to oversee the daily health and safety of our kids,it's the parents job to do that. Schools should be utilized to further the education of a child,if you choose to go that route. To assume that b/c of this case,the safety of all homeschooled kids everywhere is now in question is just as sad as assuming that b/c there are frequent problems with school violence,all schools are incredibly dangerous,and should be shut down.

this is not a revocation of any kind-the courts upheld EXISTING california homeschooling laws that date back over 50 years.

california parents have a myriad of educational choices-many that unlike homeschooling choices in other states quaify for public tax dollars to support and faciliate.

there is no requirement that a child in california that is homeschooled has to have a credentialed parent. the requirement is that absent of an affiliation with a private school (or public, there are independant study programs that are available that is very similar to homeschooling) tutoring from a credentialed person is inclusive. i don't know the exact time criteria, but at least when i looked into it 5 years ago (and the law has not changed in over 50 years) it was as minimal as having my child's work looked at by a free tutor provided by my local public school on a very minimal basis to ensure he was at least progressing at grade level- i think it could be as infrequent as one hour 2 times per month unless i requested it more often).

i hope for the GOOD homeschoolers of california that this one situation where there are obviously other issues going on (and you will never hear about those because dhs is silenced by confidentiality laws) won't start a firestorm of debate that leads to greater restrictions on homeschooling. california has 4 separate options for homeschooling kids that offer a variety of choices, they could get hard 'a' like other states, offer one hard nosed option-and that option IS contingent on getting approval from the local school superintendant. california homeschooler's in my mind should be prepared to get thrown overboard if they rock that boat too much (and i suspect it won't be the people actualy homeschooling in california, it will be people in other states who are just eating up the misinformation the media is perpetuating).

 

[bumbershoot]

URGENT: Your help is needed! Please if you HS in the USA please sign this.


Click here for link to sign petition...
https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations...CourtDecision/

Interesting. I actually had to look VERY hard to find that (b/c when I first clicked the link it didn't take me anywhere).

 

[mickeyjen]

Looks like the governor is against this ruling... This is from joinarnold.com


"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will.”

 

[mello]

The most interesting (and scary!) quote in the whole article IMO:

"Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

They think the state has more right to observe kids daily than parents do? Can anyone say "Communism?"

Now, if they are indeed talking about just this one family, I can see that; apparently there have been ongoing issues with them. But to make that into a blanket statement concerning all children in the state would be outrageous. I went to school in California, and I can tell you, the system didn't do a very good job of protecting kids from abuses by their peers at school.

 

[mello]

You know, I think the reason they wanted the children in school was because there where alllegations of abuse. Apparently the advocates thought this was necessary for the children's safety...

That is apparently the case. But it's one case. Apparently an ongoing case, and it has more to do with abuse than it does with education, so why is education law being called into question? How many cases of abuses in schools have there been?

 

[DawnM]

I feel certain that the educational issue will be taken out of the equasion soon enough.

My understanding is that this family did NOT homeschool legally, in other words, they did not file their R-4 to be compliant with state homeschooling laws, so in essence, they were truant as they had not filed to be their own "private school."

The fact that this judge went WAY overboard and made it a homeschooling issue is really a non-issue. it will be overturned very quickly.

Dawn

 

[DawnM]

I think this is where the article originated. I got it from a friend of a friend, so honestly, I don't think I should have posted without delving further.

http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/groupnews/?p=326

I do not even know this person on this blog and it seems to be just a woman's opinion.

I DO think people need to calm down. There is mass hysteria right now on so many message boards about this. This is ONE judge, ONE court case and ONE family....out of the 35 Million people in California. This will be overturned. People getting upset at each other and fighting each other about it is not helping.

I am a Californian. We moved over 2 years ago, but I am from CA. I homeschooled in CA.

Dawn

That is so odd they say that (I know YOU are not saying it). I was looking on their site last night, and even though I don't really get behind that site (too religious for me) I couldn't find any hysteria anywhere.

Seemed to me that the only hysteria was coming from the media!

 

[DawnM]

This may help with calming concerns.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/MNCHVG0SD.DTL

 

[Bluesdad]

was interesting this morning-i turned on the tv and the channel happened to be on the 700 club. i was about to flip past it when i heard this topic was being discussed-found it realy interesting that they perceived it as a 'NEW' way for the government to ensure kids are taught sex education in the public schools and prevented from learning christainity in a homebased classroom.

i'm thinking-nothings new about it, been in place since the 50's, has nothing to do with teaching sex-ed (and even when i was in school in the 60's thru the end of 79 parents had to sign a consent form for us to receive sex ed, still was the practice when we lived in ca. last year), noone is saying homeschoolers can't teach about christianity or anyother subject matter.

wish people (esp. the media) would get their facts straight before they go out and rile people up.

They did get the facts straight. In fact there was a case in 2005, "Field vs.The Palmdale School District" which involved a suit filed on behalf of several parents concerning a "sex survery" that was given to 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders (age as low as 7 years old) the 9th district court ruled that the parents have no rights beyond the school doors to say what can and cannot be done or taught to their children. The parents were given a consent to sign but it failed to mention that it involved sexual questions. They signed the consent not knowing what was on the survey. You are right though when you say they aren't saying they can't teach Christianity etc.. because they are just saying they can't teach anything if this passes. They are taking one issue with one family and making a broad sweep to include everyone who homeschools, which isn't right to do. IMHO

 

[Bluesdad]

This may help with calming concerns.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/MNCHVG0SD.DTL

Thanks Dawn. I am now calm... GO Arnold!

 

[barkley]

They did get the facts straight. In fact there was a case in 2005, "Field vs.The Palmdale School District" which involved a suit filed on behalf of several parents concerning a "sex survery" that was given to 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders (age as low as 7 years old) the 9th district court ruled that the parents have no rights beyond the school doors to say what can and cannot be done or taught to their children. The parents were given a consent to sign but it failed to mention that it involved sexual questions. They signed the consent not knowing what was on the survey. You are right though when you say they aren't saying they can't teach Christianity etc.. because they are just saying they can't teach anything if this passes. They are taking one issue with one family and making a broad sweep to include everyone who homeschools, which isn't right to do. IMHO

maybe it's me, and i know i've been viewed as a p.i.t.a. by school administrators for my inquisitive and question nature about things, but there's no way i would ever sign a consent for my child to do anything unless i was fully aware and understanding of what i was giving consent for. someone wants to survey my child-i want to know what the content of that survey is or the answer is 'no'.

 

[Bluesdad]

maybe it's me, and i know i've been viewed as a p.i.t.a. by school administrators for my inquisitive and question nature about things, but there's no way i would ever sign a consent for my child to do anything unless i was fully aware and understanding of what i was giving consent for. someone wants to survey my child-i want to know what the content of that survey is or the answer is 'no'.

I agree 100% with you. However, I believe they weren't told everything on the consent, I believe it did not specifically mention that the topic of sex would be covered in the questions. Plus who is going to think that sex would be in the topic of questions one would even ask a 1st grader! I mean I would be like, hmm a survey, ok what kind of horsey do you like best, the brown one or the spotted one? I'm currently trying to find what exactly was on the survey. I'm interested to know.

 

[Bluesdad]

The only thing I could find so far on what was in the survey is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff41.html