Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘teaching’

My children have a special tradition that they do with their Grandma every time that a new baby is born into our family. They bake “baby brownies”! All of the children from the oldest to the youngest get to help prepare and decorate brownies to be enjoyed when Mommy, Daddy, and the new baby come home from the hospital. This allows the children the chance to make wonderful memories with their Grandmother while she is caring for them, and teaches them that babies being born is something to celebrate and look forward to!

This is the third time that they have made “baby brownies”, and let me tell you,they keep on getting even tastier every time. After all, they are made with more and more love each time, as another little set of hands gets their turn to help!

Aprons on! Everyone is ready to get started!

Kassidy has got the right idea!

 

Kaitlyn adds some oil.

Here comes Kourtney with the eggs!

Time to start the mixing!

More mixing with Kyle.

Kassidy keeps it going.

Kourtney gets her chance to mix it up.

Okay, time to bring in the big muscles with Kory!

Time for the yummy chocolate frosting!

Kyle is the official frosting-tester…now that is a great job to have!

Ah! The finishing touch…rainbow sprinkles!!!

Here is the final product…delicious!! These did not last long, let me tell you!

Read Full Post »

Well, it has been a long 6 months but the battle for homeschool freedom in the state of California has ended for now…with success!! After following this case closely since not long after beginning this blog, it is nice to see such a positive culmination of events in this important matter. Below you can read more about this victory for parental rights. Praise the Lord for His obvious hand in this fight!

The following case report can be found at this location:

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200808080.asp

Here is the text:

A Great Victory for California Homeschoolers

In a unanimous decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today ruled that California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education.

Today’s decision stands in stark contrast to the opinion this same three-judge panel issued in February, which would have made California the only state in the union to outlaw home education had it remained in effect.

It is unusual for an appellate court to grant a petition for rehearing as this court did in March,said HSLDA Chairman Mike Farris,but it is truly remarkable for a court to completely reverse its own earlier opinion. We thank you for your prayers and give God the glory for this great victory.

When the court vacated its earlier decision on March 25, 2008, it invited interested organizations to file friend-of-the-court briefs.I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling, said Farris, who was one of the attorneys who argued the case on rehearing along with Alliance Defense Fund attorney, Jeff Shafer who represented the father. The father was also represented by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

California’s three largest homeschool organizations, California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and Christian Home Education Association joined together in one brief to defend the right of all parents to homeschool. HSLDA, Family Protection Ministries and Focus on the Family also joined in a separate brief. Numerous other private organizations came to the defense of home education as did California’s governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

We are extremely grateful to all of the organizations who worked tirelessly to protect and preserve homeschooling freedom in California. We are also thankful for you, our members, for your prayers and support during this trying season.

The freedom to homeschool is a precious gift from God. But keeping it free requires vigilance and perseverance. We must continue to work together diligently to preserve this precious freedom in California and elsewhere.

Below are excerpts from the opinion:

We will conclude that: (1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent. [FN1: We use the terms home school and home schooling to refer to full-time education in the home by a parent or guardian who does not necessarily possess a teaching credential.]

Although the Legislature did not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit home schooling, more recent enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition that home schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private schools. Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools. Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of home schooling, by exempting home schools from requirements otherwise applicable to private schools.

While the Legislature has never acted to expressly supersede Turner and Shinn, it has acted as though home schooling is, in fact, permitted in California.

While the legislative history of Education Code section 44237 is somewhat complicated, it confirms this interpretation, and also reflects the Legislature’s apparent intent to accommodate home schooling parents.

The most logical interpretation of subsequent legislative enactments and regulatory provisions supports the conclusion that a home school can, in fact, fall within the private school exception to the general compulsory education law.

We therefore conclude that home schools may constitute private schools.

While the interpretation of the private school exemption is ultimately an issue for the courts, we find it significant that education and enforcement officials at both the state and local levels agree that home schools may constitute private schools.

In short, the rule of Turner and Shinn has been discounted as a doctrinal anachronism, and clinging to such precedent would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.

Another news story regarding this issue can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeschool9-2008aug09,0,858947.story

The article follows:

Parents may home-school children without teaching credential, California court says

Gov. Schwarzenegger praises the reversal by the 2nd District Court of Appeal as a victory for students and parental rights.

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 9, 2008

Parents may legally home-school their children in California even if they lack a teaching credential, a state appellate court ruled Friday. The decision is a reversal of the court’s earlier position, which effectively prohibited most home schooling and sparked fear throughout the state’s estimated 166,000 home-schoolers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had vowed to allow home schooling through legislation if the court did not act, praised the ruling. 
 
“This is a victory for California’s students, parents and education community. This decision confirms the right every California child has to a quality education and the right parents have to decide what is best for their children,” he said. “I hope the ruling settles this matter for parents and home-schooled children once and for all in California, but assure them that we, as elected officials, will continue to defend parents’ rights.”

In February, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a child protection hearing that parents must have a teaching credential to home-school their children. The decision caused a nationwide uproar among home-schoolers, religious activists and others, and the court agreed to reconsider its decision, a move described as unusual but not unprecedented.

The issue arose in part because California’s laws do not specifically address home schooling, unlike those of at least 30 other states.
Friday’s ruling essentially upheld the position of the state Department of Education and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who have traditionally allowed home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.

“As head of California’s public school system, it would be my wish that all children attend public school, but I understand that a traditional public school environment may not be the right setting for each and every child,” he said. “I recognize and understand the consternation that the earlier court ruling caused for many parents and associations involved in home schooling. It is my hope that today’s ruling will allay many of those fears and resolve much of the confusion.”

The court also said that the right of parents to home-school their children can be overridden if a child is in danger.

Home-schooling families celebrated the ruling.

“We’re ecstatic, happy and thrilled,” said Loren Gould of Westchester, who teaches her son, Logan, 7, at home. “He gets to keep his love of learning alive. . . . The world is his classroom.”

The case stemmed from the Long family of Lynwood, who were accused of mistreating some of their eight children. All of the children are or had been enrolled at Sunland Christian School, where they would occasionally take tests, but they were taught in their home by their mother.

Lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children had asked the court to require them to attend a public or private school full time so adults could monitor their well-being. The family court declined, but the children’s lawyers appealed.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in February that Sunland officials’ occasional monitoring of the Longs’ methods of teaching were insufficient to qualify as being enrolled in a private school. Because Mary Long does not have a teaching credential, the family violated state laws, the ruling said.

The Longs, the Sunland school and others appealed, and the appellate panel agreed to revisit the ruling. That panel heard arguments in June at a freewheeling hearing attended by at least 45 attorneys representing disparate groups. Democratic and Republican politicians, religious and secular home-schoolers, and liberal and conservative legal scholars all weighed in, saying the court had erred.

Phillip Long, who has said the family chose to home-school the children because of their strong Christian beliefs, said Friday that he doesn’t believe the court was swayed by the legal arguments.

“Only one thing swayed this court — politics,” he said. “This court was under pressure. . . . They did it to protect themselves and their reputation. Those judges want to be Supreme Court judges, they want to move up. They’re not going to do anything to upset their careers.”

Though the appellate court upheld the right of parents to home-school, it did direct the family court to revisit whether the Longs should be allowed to continue to home-school their children.

It’s unclear what will happen, because in July the family court terminated its jurisdiction over the family’s children, though the children’s lawyers are appealing that decision. Long is confident he will prevail.

“Educating your children in your own home preexisted these buffoons that sit on the 2nd Circuit,” he said. “It preexisted this state. It preexisted us. Parents have been teaching their own children since the beginning.”

California does little to enforce the education department’s provisions and insists that doing so is the local school districts’ responsibility.

In addition, state education officials say some parents home-school their children without the knowledge of any entity, making them virtually impossible to locate.

Home-schoolers and government officials have largely accepted this murky arrangement, but the court faulted the Legislature for failing to clarify the rules.

“It is important to recognize that it is not for us to consider, as a matter of policy, whether home schooling should be permitted in California. That job is for the Legislature. It is not the duty of the courts to make the law; we endeavor to interpret it,” Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a ruling signed by the two other members of the panel. “Our first task, interpreting the law of California, is made more difficult in this case by legislative inaction.”

To that end, the court said additional requirements for home-schoolers in other states such as standardized testing or home visits should be considered by the California Legislature.

“Given the state’s compelling interest in educating all of its children . . . and the absence of an express statutory and regulatory framework for home schooling in California, additional clarity in this area of the law would be helpful,” according to the ruling.

Statements such as those irked some home-school organizations that are weary of regulation, but were supported by constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Irvine’s law school, who urged the court to overturn its initial ruling that banned most home schooling.

“I believe it’s the right of parents, if they chose, to be able to home-school their children. That’s absolutely their right,” he said. But “the state has an important interest [in] making sure all children are adequately educated.”

seema.mehta@latimes.com


Read Full Post »

The landmark case to decide whether home education in California is legal or illegal, has taken another turn. Oral arguments have been heard, and we are waiting on a ruling to determine whether parental rights will be upheld, or be threatened. This case has the potential to set a nation-wide precedent for homeschooling freedoms. The possible aftershocks that could result if home education is, in effect, ruled illegal, are widespread, so we must follow this closely.

I urge you not to take the  “I’m glad that it is THERE, and not HERE” attitude. Do not allow yourself to slip into complacency merely because this is not as much “big” news, as it was back in March. Know this. Whichever way the ruling goes will have an impact upon the homeschooling community at large, and we must remain watchful that it does not damage the rights we now have, that were won at a large cost to many families. You can read more below.

The source for this article can be found at the following location:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67859

The update follows below:

 Homeschool advocates fight for parental rights
Oral arguments heard to decide fate of California educational choice

Posted: June 23, 2008
10:12 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Oral arguments were heard today in the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, with the fate of homeschooling in California at stake.

As WND reported earlier, the court’s decision four months ago to compel two homeschooled children to attend a public or qualifying private school effectively stated that parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling for their own children.

After much public and political outcry, the appeal court agreed to revisit its prior ruling.

Michael Farris, chairman and co-founder of the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association, was one of many attorneys from several organizations urging the court to reconsider, and he presented the day’s final argument.

“Anybody that claims they know which way the court will decide would be wrong,” Farris told WND.

“The judges asked very hard, pointed questions,” he said. “There was no indication that they thought their prior ruling was wrong.”

Specifically, Farris said, the judges asked why they should permit homeschooling when California changed the law to withdraw it from the statutes in the early 1900s.

Attorneys advocating homeschooling argued that when California in 1967 added the singular word “person” to the list of those that can operate a legitimate private school, it opened the door for homeschooling. “If a person can provide education, if one person can operate a school,” argued the attorneys, “then why not a parent?”

“Their questions were about the 1910s; our answer was from the 1960s,” Farris told WND.

Furthermore, said Farris, “I argued that the California constitution requires the state to encourage all education. It’s the court’s duty, rather than banning education, to encourage it.”

He also urged the judges to take into account the thousands of people who have implied from the 1967 law that homeschooling is permissible “and not willy-nilly overturn that practice.”

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their parents and advocates have expressed concern that the court’s original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home open to criminal truancy charges and civil charges for child neglect.

Some grounds for that concern may come from the appeal court’s first ruling, where it said the trial court had found that “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.”

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, a parental rights advocacy organization involved in the case, told WND earlier, “We are looking forward to this opportunity to defend the thousands of families who are making sacrifices to teach their children at home. The state should be applauding, not threatening, these families,” he said.

Though he expressed concern over which way the judges would decide, Farris told WND, “We hope that the court reverses its decision and restores homeschool freedom to California.”

Read Full Post »

We all want our children to know the dangers of some of the choices they might make. We tell them not to run out in the street, so that they will not get run over by a car. We tell them not to play with guns, because they might accidentally discharge the weapon, and be hurt or killed. We tell them not to do drugs or drink alcohol, because it is harmful to their bodies and it could kill them. We tell them not to get behind the wheel of a car, if they have consumed a substance that would impair their abilities, so that they will not hurt themselves or someone else.

These are all important lessons that need to be taught, no argument there whatsoever. But children need to be approached in an honest and open way. They need to have these issues brought to their attention in a well-thought out and organized manner. The way to teach is not via scare tactics and careless lies that dismantle a child’s trust in you.

A school in California decided, that terrorizing students with blatant lies that some of their classmates/friends had been killed in car wrecks, was the way to go in teaching avoidance of DUI (driving under the influence) incidents. Another great example as to why it is best to keep your children at home to educate them, instead of handing them off to whatever unknown joker with a personal agenda or bizarre plan that happens to be waiting for them.

Continue reading below and you will see the nightmare that they put these teenagers through. I, for one, am glad that my children will not be subjected to deception and trickery under the guise of the “educational process”.

This news story can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25123570/

Here is the article:

Calif. school defends DWI shock tactics
Students were told classmates had died in car wrecks — they hadn’t

OCEANSIDE, Calif. – On a Monday morning last month, highway patrol officers visited 20 classrooms at El Camino High School to announce some horrible news: Several students had been killed in car wrecks over the weekend.

Classmates wept. Some became hysterical.

A few hours and many tears later, though, the pain turned to fury when the teenagers learned that it was all a hoax — a scared-straight exercise designed by school officials to dramatize the consequences of drinking and driving.

As seniors prepare for graduation parties Friday, school officials in the largely prosperous San Diego suburb are defending themselves against allegations they went too far.

At school assemblies, some students held up posters that read: “Death is real. Don’t play with our emotions.”

‘They got the shock they wanted’
Michelle de Gracia, 16, was in physics class when an officer announced that her missing classmate David, a popular basketball player, had died instantly after being rear-ended by a drunken driver. She said she felt nauseated but was too stunned to cry.

“They got the shock they wanted,” she said.

Some of her classmates became extremely upset, prompting the teacher to tell them immediately it was all staged.

“People started yelling at the teacher,” she said. “It was pretty hectic.”

Others, including many who heard the news of the 26 deaths between classes, were left in the dark until the missing students reappeared hours later.

“You feel betrayed by your teachers and administrators, these people you trust,” said 15-year-old Carolyn Magos. “But then I felt selfish for feeling that way, because, I mean, if it saves one life, it’s worth it.”

‘We wanted them to be traumatized’
Officials at the 3,100-student school officials defended the program.

“They were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized,” said guidance counselor Lori Tauber, who helped organize the shocking exercise and got dozens of students to participate. “That’s how they get the message.”

The plan was to tell the truth to the students at an assembly later in the day. But word that it was all a hoax began to spread before the gathering. Tauber said some counselors and administrators revealed the truth to calm some students who had become upset.

Oceanside Schools Superintendent Larry Perondi said he fielded only a few calls from parents, while the PTA chapter said it had not heard any complaints. Perondi said the program would be revised, but he would not say how. And he said he was glad that students seemed to have gotten the message.

“We did this in earnest,” he said. “This was not done to be a prankster.”

 

Read Full Post »

In my last entry, I posted about how Subway Restaurants had chosen to exclude home educators from their writing contest titled “Every Sandwich Tells a Story”. The decision to leave homeschoolers out has struck many, including myself, as unfair discrimination, although it is not clear that negative motivation was involved.

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) drafted a letter of response to Subway, and I am happy to report that this letter, in addition to a vocal public response, has elicited an apology from the restaurant company, as well as, a promise to include homeschoolers in future promotional offerings.

You can read the HSLDA letter to Subway, and Subway’s response to them below.

Open Letter to Subway: Let Homeschoolers Enter Contest
May 27, 2008
Frederick A. DeLuca, President
Subway Restaurant Headquarters
325 Bic Drive
Milford, CT 06461-3059

Dear Mr. DeLuca:

By way of introduction, I am the President of Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and we represent 83,000 member families nationwide. This letter is to draw attention to your “Every Sandwich Tells a Story Contest,” and the unfortunate fact that homeschoolers are not allowed to participate.

The rules clearly state: “Contest is open only to legal residents of the United States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted (emphasis added).”

It is extremely disappointing that Subway would choose to exclude the estimated 2 million homeschooled students.

We understand that the competition is focused on traditional public and private schools because the grand prize of $5,000 of athletic equipment is designed to be used by a traditional school and not an individual family. A potential homeschool winner, however, could simply donate the grand prize to a public or private school of their choice or to a homeschool sports league.

Homeschooling is a thriving educational option. All the available research shows that homeschoolers are excelling academically and socially. We do not deserve to be overlooked.

We hope that you will reconsider the rules of your competition and choose to amend them to include homeschoolers.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

This letter can be read via the HSLDA web-site here:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200805270.asp

Subway Apologizes
HSLDA is pleased to pass along the following apology from Subway restaurants.

To HSLDA:

We at SUBWAY restaurants place a high value on education, regardless of the setting, and have initiated a number of programs and promotions aimed at educating our youth in the areas of health and fitness.

We sincerely apologize to anyone who feels excluded by our current essay contest. Our intention was to provide an opportunity for traditional schools, many of which we know have trouble affording athletic equipment, to win equipment. Our intent was certainly not to exclude homeschooled children from the opportunity to win prizes and benefit from better access to fitness equipment.

To address the inadvertent limitation of our current contest and provide an opportunity for even more kids to improve their fitness, we will soon create an additional contest in which homeschooled students will be encouraged to participate. When the kids win, everyone wins!

This response letter from Subway can be read here:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200805280.asp

 


 

Read Full Post »

The sandwich restaurant Subway, is currently running a writing contest for children who are in the pre-K to 6th grade school level. Each child who wishes to enter is encouraged to select a “story-starter” from a list of choices, and write an original story that is 500 words or less in length. This sounds like a great idea. It encourages creative writing and is an activity supporting time spent not sitting in front of the television or a video game system. This contest promotes practice in spelling and grammar skills, also admirable, despite the obvious spelling errors in the promotional materials they offer. The problem? They BLATANTLY discriminate against homeschoolers and their children. Homeschoolers are not welcome to enter.

Now, before I get the same responses that I have been running across elsewhere, allow me to say this. If a public or a private school were having a similar contest I would not expect my homeschooled children to be eligible to participate. When HSLDA or another home education related group has an essay contest, I do not expect traditionally schooled children to be eligible to participate. Those are very separate entities with a clear division of purpose. I would certainly not propose that my daughter be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, or call her exclusion from that organization discriminatory. Presumably however, Subway is a restaurant organized to feed and serve the entire community, who wish to indulge, and not just a specific portion of it. So disallowing home educators to participate is DISCRIMINATION.

I have also heard the argument that because part of the prize package is a $5000.00 athletic package, that only traditional schools should be able to take part in this contest. This too is absurd, because it would be easy to find a homeschool support association, youth club, or similar group to donate to which would be very grateful for such supplies. Really, they have no leg to stand on.

This merely hails as a very bad marketing choice for Subway, and I do not intend to provide them with my business again until it is rectified. Perhaps my response seems harsh to some, but in my mind, blatant discrimination against children based upon the fact that they are being homeschooled is ridiculous. Subway will definitely be receiving a mature and well-worded letter of comment from me, and if you feel as I do, I urge you to do the same. After all, the point is not to just sit around and complain, it is to try and right a wrong. You can read more details about the contest below.

The source for this news story is located here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65217

Here is the article:

Subway sandwich contest: Homeschoolers not wanted

 
Spelling-challenged promotion offers gift ‘bastket’ to winners

 
Posted: May 24, 2008
7:00 pm Eastern

 
By Jay Baggett
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 
Subway, the sandwich restaurant, wants to hear your child’s story – unless he or she is homeschooled.

The national chain’s “Every Sandwich Tells a Story Contest” offers prizes and a chance to be published on the Subway website and in Scholastic’s “Parent & Child” magazine but specifically excludes homeschoolers:

 
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.

Subway’s website promotion not only misspells “United” States, but offers the grand prize winner a “Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home.”

The 2007 winner of the Scripps National Spelling Bee was Evan O’Dorney, a 13-year old homeschool student from Danville, Calif.

Contestants are urged to write, in 500 words or less, a story that has a beginning, middle, and end using one of four provided story starters:

The Mysterious Meatball
When the invitation to the Meatball came in the mail…

Turkey Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
There was a loud knock on the door, but when Salami Sam opened it …

The Race to Red Onion Ranch
Everyone gathered in the center of town for the start of the race except …

Nothing Better
The smell of fresh baked bread coming from the store was so good that …

The contest, launched in January, has a deadline of June 30, 2008. A grand prize winner and 6 runners-up will be selected on July 15 and announced approximately a week later.

 
The company’s website promotion encourages submitters to describe in their essays “random acts of fitness,” such as eating right, exercising, playing sports and living a healthy lifestyle.

Subway has marketed itself for several years as a healthy alternative to fast food, featuring spokesman Jared Fogle who went from 425 pounds to 190 pounds on a daily diet of the chain’s lower-calorie sandwiches.

The exclusion of homeschoolers, presumably because the grand prize includes $5,000 worth of athletic equipment for the winning child’s school, has caught the attention of bloggers who educate their children.

Valerie Bonham Moon, writing for HomeEdMag, referred to the exclusion as “Subway’s P.R. gaffe.”

“By now, the Subway sandwich shop marketing division must know how bad of a decision it was on the part of whichever wonk who decided to expressly exclude homeschoolers from their latest contest. E-mail lists may not be utterly aflame over the exclusion, but there is more than one p—ed-off homeschool mom spreading the word. I’ve been reading their e-mails.”

Moon notes Subway, with a bit of forethought, could have easily included homeschoolers:

“One of the more obvious work-arounds that the developers of the Subway contest could have included for homeschooling parents who entered on their children’s behalf, was for the equipment to be donated to a local park, or to a school of the winner’s choice. Problem solved – good will all around. Too bad that it didn’t play out that way.

“I look forward to seeing how the Subway wonks handle their self-inflicted wound.”

The blogger at Capturing Today, a homeschooling mother, isn’t waiting for the self-inflicted wound, suggesting homeschool families “act now!”

“Excuse me, but there are MILLIONS of homeschool students in this nation and this is just discrimination. A homeschool student could easily donate the athletic equipment to their homeschool athletic association, local park, athletic center, neighborhood center or the like. I realize they are doing this to have a mass-marketing effect, but they could have just as great a media response from a charitable homeschool student donating the prize.

“I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for us to make our voices heard that we as homeschool families are tired of being cast in a negative light.

Jim and Cathy Peschke, blogging at Croydoncraft, expressed their displeasure by entering an essay on behalf of their 3-year-old homeschooled daughter who, while visiting a Subway restaurant, breaks into tears upon learning she’s not eligible to enter the contest.

“I cried and cried, and asked Daddy if we could leave. He said ‘Certainly. Not only will we never visit a mean old Subway store again, we’ll organize a B-O-Y-C-O-T-T of Subway stores by all your homeschooling friends!’

‘I sure hope Subway changes their silly policy so Mommy and Daddy can take me back for more sandwiches.'”

 

Read Full Post »

Things have been quiet for a while regarding the home education situation in California following the major uproar that occured in March. However, things are still happening behind the scenes and it is important that we stay informed and on top of things. Even if California feels far from home for you, please remember that it does not take much to create precedent, and what happens elsewhere can easily and quickly affect all of us wherever we are. So we do well to stay in touch with the current climate towards homeschooling and parental rights.  Here is the most recent update regarding this matter.

You can find the source for this information at the following location:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64830

The article follows below:

Gov. Arnold: Let homeschooling continue
‘State provides a broad statutory basis for education by parents in California’

Posted: May 20, 2008
10:16 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other officials have told an appeals court there’s no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.

The recommendations come in an amicus brief from California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and others on behalf of the state and its governor.

A ruling from the Court of Appeal in the 2nd District, Division 3 in a dispute stemming from a juvenile case earlier had declared that the state constitution provided no right for parents to school their children at home, threatening the education choice for hundreds of thousands of families across the state.

WND broke the story in February when that ruling was released, but it later simply was dropped when the same panel of judges agreed to rehear the case.

The panel, in announcing the rehearing, invited several interested parties to submit amicus briefs of the question of the constitutionality of homeschooling in California, including the state and its education department as well as several teachers’ unions.

Now the brief from Brown and Schwarzenegger said the court doesn’t have to work that hard to make a decision.

“Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds,” the brief said. “The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children.”

The brief said the trial court in the case at hand “addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act.”

“Accordingly, this court should remand to the trial court for proper consideration of that question in the first instance, and the constitutional issues should not be decided until such time that a resolution is ‘absolutely required … to dispose of the matter,'” the recommendation said.

“The governor’s brief supports the right of California parents to teach their children at home,” stated the governor’s press secretary, Aaron McLear. “It explains how the California Education Code already provides for homeschooling and urges the court to recognize and affirm this important right.”

An earlier amicus brief had been filed by the Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Sunland Christian Academy, the private school that offers the independent program in which the family’s children were enrolled.

The father in the case is represented separately by the United States Justice Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, which have been working on the case’s main arguments to the court. Since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.

“The Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, [paragraphs] 1 and 7, of the California Constitution, protect the fundamental due process and privacy liberties of Californians,” according to the Pacific Justice brief, which cited court cases addressing the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children, the right for parents to educate children as they choose, the “private realm of family life,” and others.

“The areas represent ‘a realm of personal liberty’ which the government may not enter,” said the filing.

The governor’s brief said the state provides options for students to be schooled at home with a licensed tutor or through a school independent study program. The third option is for parents, who are “persons capable of teaching” and have met the state records requirements, to teach their children at home.

The original opinion, later dropped, was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: “We find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'”

Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.

Also filing an amicus brief – this one on behalf of members of Congress – is Liberty Counsel.

The brief provides an overview of home education laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and notes that as early as 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to direct the education of their children.

“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only,” the high court said.

Oral arguments are scheduled in June.

The original opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family’s two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys’ request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »