Here’s an article I missed from the Daily Advertiser on April 9th about homeschoolers and access to public school sports.

Posted: April 9th, 2008 under legal, opportunities.
Comments: none

It’s been a busy week, but then again, most of my weeks are busy.  There was more homeschooling in the news–Governor Jindal has proposed a tax break for homeschooling parents which would allow deductions for certain expenses from state income taxes (here’s a link to the governor’s site)–as well as providing similiar tax breaks for private school parents.   I’m not really in favor of this (disclaimer:  I speak only for myself.  I haven’t even talked to my husband about this)–I would much prefer to keep putting money into the educational system and be allowed to take advantage of some of the benefits (like gifted and talented programs or the arts academies).   That doesn’t seem to be on the table, though.   Besides, aren’t there a lot of people who put money into our educational system who don’t have children at all?   Or whose children have grown up and gone?   Should everyone without children in the public school system be allowed to opt out of it?   Or, instead, should we all support and try to improve the state of public education in Louisiana?  I see a lot of problems with this legislation, not the least of which is a sort of “what have you done for me lately” mentality.

But back on the home front, things are moving forward toward the end of the year.   Child #2’s graduation is still being planned (and like everything else, it’s moving a lot more slowly than I originally anticipated).   But school work is going well.   And the two middle children auditioned for a movie to be made here in Lafayette (yesterday), and now we’re waiting to  see if either of them get a call-back.   It looked as though the audition went well for #2, but we won’t know until (or unless) we get a call-back.

Children #3 and #4 are moving along with their studies, even though it’s been slow going for a little while.  I think we’re on track to be moving on by the end of the year.  That means that it’s almost time to start looking at books for next year.  I always wait until the very last minute–but as my oldest says, “if you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute.”   I do have some idea what classes we’ll be doing, so I’m not completely in the dark.   I’ll be looking for a new geometry book and a new chemistry book.   Saxon Math (generally my math of choice) doesn’t have a seperate geometry course, but I do think that geometry is necessary to math.   Saxon says that they cover it sufficiently well in their Algebra I and II books, but I just don’t agree.

Finding science books has always been hard for me.   Although I like sciences, it’s not my field of expertise, so I have to really rely on the books to cover everything that the kids will need.  I try to choose as carefully as I can.   A lot of the texts available to homeschoolers are Christian oriented, so there is either no evolutionary material or an overt anti-evolutionary bias.  I’m not going to get into that fight here, but whether a family agrees with evolution as a theory or not,  almost every college science course starts with that as a basis.   I think that it is counter productive to put a child into that environment without any preparation.

Child #4’s books will be much easier to choose.   Early elementary texts are simpler and therefore (I find) more parent friendly.   Science, math, social studies and finding the best reading materials are somehow easier when the child is not yet in high school.  Actually, a lot of stuff is easier when the children aren’t yet in high school….

Posted: March 18th, 2008 under learning, legal.
Comments: 1

For those who are interested, here’s a link to a homeschooling blog with really up-to-date news on the California case (including a statement from the California Department of Education):

http://melissawiley.com/blog/

Posted: March 13th, 2008 under learning, legal.
Comments: none

For the last few days, people have been asking me whether or not I’ve heard about the homeschooling case that has come out of California.  The case started out (apparently) as a child protection type case.  What I’ve read in one online accounting of the case is that, in investigating an allegation of physical abuse, the child protection workers discovered what they felt was educational neglect.  The attorney for the children (which I’m judging to be a guardian ad litem) requested that the juvenile court judge order two of the children to be placed in a school.  That judge refused, saying that the parents had a right, in California, to educate their children at home.

The state appealed that ruling, and the case went to an appeal court.  It is that appellate court ruling that has both the homeschooling and non-homeschooling community in an uproar.

The appellate court issued a decision, based on California statutory and constitutional law, which found that parents in California do not have the right to school their children at home.   Homeschooling parents all over the United States are now afraid that they will be told to put their children in school, and opponents of homeschooling are trumpeting their agreement with the decision, hoping that it will mean that all homeschools will be “closed.  Actually, neither one is likely.

The case is very tightly based on California law (although the appellate court did review those U.S. Supreme Court cases it felt were relevant).  The California education statute does not appear (in my cursory glance) to grant the right to homeschool to California parents (although there could be some argument based on their “private school” language), and does appear to require that all students be taught by someone certified at their individual grade levels.  The court relies on California law for the basis of it’s decision, and so–in those states (like Louisiana) where there is specific statutory language dealing with homeschooling–this result is unlikely to occur.

What I find much more troubling about the case is that the court apparently feels that part of the rationale behind the compulsory school law is to require that the parents have the children in a place where they can be “observed by people who ha[ve] a duty to ensure their ongoing safety“.  I am one of the people, in fact I am the primary person, who has a duty to ensure my child’s ongoing safety.  My children are not secluded; we see others pretty much every day.  Do I really have the obligation to present my children for inspection to some third party who may or may not be as well educated, as interested in my child, as concerned for his or her overall welfare, as I am?  I think that that kind of reasoning is problematic and, at the extremes, dangerous.  The reason for education is learning.  I know that children can be victimized, but to require that parents display them to third parties on a daily basis for “safety” is absurd.

What is really regrettable about this case is the way it arose.  Lawyers say that “Bad facts make bad law”.  And the facts surrounding this case are bad.  The children were apparently initially suspected of being physically abused (although, again, this is not perfectly clear) and the education that they were receiving from their parents was called by the first court “lousy”, “meager” and “bad”.  Accepting the court’s characterization of their educational status, it is plain that the children were not receiving an adequate education.   Homeschooling was (and to some extent for the remainder of this case, will be) represented by a family whose focus, to put it kindly, did not seem to be on what is generally recognized as “education” by most authorities.

Ultimately, this sad case is not about homeschooling at all.  Rather it is about a family which appears to be having some rather serious problems.  It is unfortunate that the world is now looking at this case as being in any way representative of the “average” homeschooling family, and trying to make decisions about whether or not homeschooling is a good or valid choice based on the evidence that this situation presents.

Posted: March 10th, 2008 under legal.
Comments: none