You have most likely read the headlines and seen the online articles. Arrests, charges, registration, approved curriculum, permission to homeschool – what’s next?

To put it into perspective, I quote from an email by John Munson on the NYHEN Yahoo Groups list:

I wouldn’t get too worked up over the use of the terms “register” and “approve curriculum” in these articles. I think it’s just a result of the fact that the articles were written by reporters who don’t know what they’re writing about. I think every news story I’ve ever been involved in has gotten stuff wrong.

As for this case, we don’t know what the parents’ reasons were for not submitting paperwork.

New York’s compulsory attendance law does require parents to “furnish proof” that their child is “attending upon required instruction elsewhere” than at a public school. This is in paragraph 3212(2)(d): http://nyhen.org/laws.htm#3212

It doesn’t say we have to “register” or “submit a curriculum” — it just says we have to “furnish proof” without defining what that proof is. That vagueness is the reason that the homeschooling regulation came about in 1988. (http://www.nyhen.org/regs.htm)

So, if the parents in this case didn’t communicate with the district or state at all, then they were violating Education Law 3212(2)(d), and as I said, it remains to be seen exactly why they were doing so. But in any event, here’s hoping that the heavy-handed tactics don’t last long.

Part of the homeschooling gig is to know your laws and the best way to do that is get connected with state and local groups.

Father to face court for letting kids miss school The West Australian 5th July 2009

A father of six who believes youngsters should be set free from schooling has become the first parent in WA to go to court and face a fine for not sending his children to school.

Mr Meier, also known as One, seems to be quite a character.  But Australia does have some oppressive home education requirements.

Under the School Education Act, children of compulsory school age have to attend school or training or take part in a home school program run by a registered home educator. Home schooling imposes rigorous expectations on parents and includes regular audits by a moderator to make sure students are making appropriate progress.

Not so fast: Home schooling trumps full-day kindergarten Jun. 18, 2009 The Globe and Mail Amira Elghawaby
Research shows home-schooled kids outperform their public-school peers. So why so is there little or no financial encouragement for parents to take it on?

Seated beside a mom with coiffed hair, polished nails and an elegant suit, I listened wide-eyed as audience members talked about a world I had totally misunderstood and stereotyped.

They talked about children who weren’t being challenged at school – one daughter came home crying, begging her mom to let her stay home and “teach” herself. Another parent described a school that just didn’t know what to do with her rambunctious boy, so she decided to take over. He excelled.

While I’m not so interested in governmental “financial encouragement” (strings are always involved), I’d rather ask, why is there little encouragement for homeschoolers from the official educational world? Home education means parental involvement is at its max, children are interested in learning….everything a teacher would want in their classroom. That is the point, right?

It works at home, so why the attempts to interfere, as in Graham Badman’s Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England ?

Headcounts via compulsory national registration, along with vested interests monitoring and analyzing why families home educate seems oppressive. As Badman acknowledges “England is the most liberal in its approach to elective home education“, he’s doing everything in his power to change that with his recommendations.

His suggestion of a “statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education” seems very limiting and unimaginative, at best. Following that recommendation with a demand for “the right of access to the home” and “the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate ” would be formidable to one’s personal living space. (That space also serving as the safe place for families to land.)

In Elghawaby’s article, she asks a logical question about the Canadian government’s Early Learning Advisor wanting drastic governmental actions such as daycares moved into the schools for a “seamless day” . (By the way, what would sustain and improve an employee’s chances of staying in the government industry? Could it be more “Early Learning” programs funded by taxpayers? Just sayin’….) From The Globe and Mail:

In England, a three-year study concluded that home-schoolers achieved better results in both literacy and mathematics. Home-schooling movements are growing there, as well as in Germany, Japan and Switzerland.

So why isn’t any of this mentioned in Charles Pascal’s report on full-day kindergarten?

That question should be asked since there is a persistent drumbeat for birth to 5 year old programs by world leaders (and other interested proponents). If the agenda is for government oversight of babies and little ones prior to compulsory attendance ages, then families can start touting the glories of not starting academic training too early.

Much Too Early!
by David Elkind, Ph.D.

Although David Elkind is a professional educator rather than a “homeschooler,” his writing offers the wisdom of experience and research that can be of great benefit to any parents concerned about providing the right start for their children.

“Children must master the language of things before they master the language of words”
—Friedrich Froebel, Pedagogics of the Kindergarten, 1895

It works well when our little ones are nurtured by their families and other loved ones to live and learn. Those young ones have questions by the mile. They deserve the freedom to seek answers outside a classroom.

Lillian Jones’ thoughts ring true in her article: A Homeschool Curriculum for Preschool and Kindergarten

If you’ve been raising a child up to the age of “pre-school” or “kindergarten,” you’ve already begun homeschooling. In those early years, the most appropriate homeschooling activities are things that gently introduce a child into the wonders of his immediate world and the imagination. As Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge” – and those early years are the perfect time to provide an atmosphere where the child can freely dream and play and explore and grow in both body and imagination.

These are lots of things a parent can do to help a child develop a love of learning and searching – things that will carry through as a foundation for a life of joyful and successful learning. Most of these are things a parent does at one time or other anyway. A bonus is that your child will be getting a good foundation for later studies, even picking up some elements of reading, writing, and math!

If you read on in her article, her suggestions are educational and positive fun! As she concludes, childhood is short, fleeting, and so very important. Families can (and should be able to) do what works for their children’s learning needs. It should not be for a bureaucratic stranger’s satisfaction.

There have been a number of articles and letters about homeschooling flying back and forth in Catoosa County, Georgia.  The originator, school social worker Sue Mason and her letter to the editor defender, say this isn’t about homeschooling.   (Homeschooling was referenced in the title and throughout.)  The inference seems to be that the double columns were about truants trying to beat ‘the system’ and homeschoolers should be grateful for Mason’s “positive comments about parents who make the sacrifice to home school their children“.

It’s tricky.

Her first editorial was: Mason: My thoughts on home schooling Mar 26, 2009 Catoosa County News

Now I understand the term means to prepare for battle. I prefer to avoid any situations that have anything to do with battles or fights or cross words or girding. Often I accidentally say the wrong thing and find myself in a situation where someone is upset. Even when I am trying to say something nice it may come out wrong. Then there are those times I know someone will misunderstand and want to do bodily harm to me but I just can’t help myself. Now is one of those times…

Home school, there it is, all out in the open. And if you are reading this column and home school your children chances are this in no way affects you. Because even though I work for the public school system I see examples of parents doing an incredible job with their kids. But there is another side, a side I work with that is not what was intended. Many home schooled children are bright, well-rounded, well-educated and more than prepared for college and for a productive life. But some parents take advantage of the system for their own benefit leaving their children behind in the dust. So fully girded, here goes.

Off she went indeed.  Her job as a school social worker has a big punch, which could culminate in court action.  She says: “some parents make the following threat: “If you and that school don’t leave me alone I’ll jerk them kids out and home school them.” And unfortunately they sometimes make good on this “threat.”

On the other side, which I like to refer to as the side of  freedom, homeschool advocates take phone calls and emails from desperate public school parents who see no light in their dark basement tunnel located in the public schools.  They’ve been pegged as worthless.  Little school administrative thought seems to apply to the often unfortunate, multi-generational public school experiences these families had.

I’ve also seen public schools use “home schooling” to get rid of kids who are not positive No Child Left Behind data points. (Dropout and truancy rate deductions are key, as the schools lose funding otherwise.) I wonder if Ms. Mason might be part of the pot calling the kettle black.

Part 2 Mason: Home schooling: The dark side 04/16/09 Catoosa County News

Some folks live their lives bounded by the philosophy of digging, or rather when you’re in a hole you should stop said activity. Again my observations on some parent’s manner of home schooling was not an indictment on the entire concept but just on what my co-workers and I witness from some parents. So now might be a good place to stop before I go any deeper; but I just can’t help myself.

I’d say she’s in the hole, but she couldn’t help herself, so the column continues at the site.

One Marietta homeschooler had a thought after reading Mason’s second column:

Letters about homeschooling articles 04/29/09 Catoosa County News

Why not write a series of companion articles on “Public Schooling: The Dark Side?” You’d probably have a higher percentage of negative stories as compared to the student population.

I don’t think anybody seriously thinks that homeschooling is a perfect world, or that every parent who claims to home educate their children is doing a good job. But given the success rate of homeschooling, why don’t we see more positive stories? [continued at site]

Another troubling thought now is that governmental definitions of “abuse” are not particularly objective. Illinois has Social/Emotional Learning Standards (school readiness).  There are some who believe homeschoolers are abusive for not letting their children socialize ala school socialization.  Some of those folks, like Sue Mason, also have the power to intimidate and destroy a loving family because of their interpretations.  (Ms. Mason’s descriptions of the families and their living abode are insulting and troubling.)

I’m with Debbie Sap, one of the family defenders responding to Sue Mason’s editorial.  What she’s seen has been my experience too. Maybe some day Sue Mason will understand that and learn the benefit of the doubt.

Readers criticize column on home schooling 04/07/09 Catoosa County News

“When the responsibility is on them, they often rise above what others thought they could do. This is not always, but it happens often enough that I think the parents should be given the benefit of the doubt. I think of the parent whose children were languishing in the low teens of the standardized tests. Whose children just couldn’t get motivated to go to school and mom couldn’t make them. She took them out and though she had what many would call a minimal education herself, she worked within the interests of those children and brought them up to the high teens on the next test. At which point, the school district wanted to say her kids were doing poorly in home school and needed government school. What did she use to interest her kids? Television. After they watched their favorite show, they had to write what they saw and how they would’ve written the screen play differently. Not the way I would’ve chosen to teach, but as their parent, she knew how to reach them. I also think of the family who hated mornings and stayed up until 2 or 3 a.m. They did their prime home schooling after 9 p.m. No interruptions and they could sleep in. Really bothered the neighbors, though, that the kids slept and played all day, because they didn’t see the schooling that happened. Oh, most of the kids who graduated from their home school have gone on to college. (Can anyone say, “late nights studying”?) Then, there’s my friend who dropped out in 9th grade and her husband had dropped out in 8th grade. When they decided to home school, they did so quietly since neither had their GED. While the kids were in grade school, Dad got his GED – nothing like your kids counting on you to push a parent. At this point, they “registered.” Then, mom got her GED. She stayed one year ahead of the kids through high school. When child No. 1 graduated, he was so smart in computers, there were only two colleges on the continent that could teach him anything in his subject. When child No. 2 graduated, he tested out of the first two years of college.

More commentary from Georgian, Jeannie Babb Taylor:  On the Other Hand 04/21/09

Homeschoolers play in the dirt — Addressing the school social worker’s rant
This weekend my grandson came over to the house to play. Almost two years old, little Isaiah has a firmly set mission in life: To find whatever trouble he can, and thoroughly get into it. In our yard, he made a bee-line for the leaky water hose.

“You see what he’s doing?” I asked my daughter.

Moriah shrugged. “It’s just water . . . and mud. He’ll come clean.” Isaiah picked up the hose and leaned over for a better look, inadvertently squirting himself in the face. He looked up at us, streams of water pouring from his fine blond hair. We were smiling, so he smiled back. He stared at the stream for a moment, and then started lapping at it like a puppy. We laughed while he drenched himself, eventually muddy up to his knees. [continued at site]

North Dakota House Bill 1171 passed in the Senate with a 27-20 vote, after amendments to the House version. The passed House version (61 to 33) had no state supervision of homeschooling families. The Senate version requires that parents have at least a high school diploma or GED in order to homeschool with no state supervision. Currently, all homeschool families must have school monitoring.

A related bill concerning mandated kindergarten, (also reducing the compulsory attendance age to 6), came into the discussion about homeschooling regulations in the North Dakota legislature.  House Education Chair Kelsch, SB 2202 sponsor, noted that since HB 1171 was likely to pass the House;  then homeschoolers notify at 6, and could “be free to start actual instruction under whatever schedule they think best, [so] it should not be a burden”.  Her bill failed. It could have been ugly if her advice had been taken and the bill lowering compulsory attendance age passed, while homeschool regulations had not been relaxed.

Home-schoolers oppose kindergarten bill INFORUM Published: 03/11/2009
By: Craig McEwen

Sen. JoNell Bakke, D-Grand Forks, a special education teacher when she is not at the Legislature, sponsored the bill because she believes now that all schools must offer full-day kindergarten, all children should get kindergarten.

James Bartlett, executive director of the North Dakota Home School Association, said it would be a burden for North Dakotans who intend to home school their children to have to file the required statement of intent a year earlier.

Many home educators do not want to begin formal academics at age 6 because research and home educating experience demonstrates that children forced into academics before their brains are physically ready lose the love of learning, he said.

But House Education Chairwoman Rep. Rae Ann Kelsch, R-Mandan, noted that the Legislature likely will pass House Bill 1171, which removes mandatory state supervision of home-schoolers. The bill has passed the House and is being considered in the Senate.

Home school law relaxed Grand Forks Herald Published: 4/06/2009
By: Janell Cole

Opponents of SB1171 included Sen. Tim Flakoll, R-Fargo, and Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck, who called it a “radical change” that could cause a bad result for the nearly 1,500 children in the state who are home-schooled.

I would think homeschooling results from other states with no state supervision, would have quelled those worries.  Sometimes people ‘hear’ what they want to hear.

An AP article had a different sort of spin about “standards”.

ND Senate reduces home-schooling standards The Associated Press 4/07/2009
By DALE WETZEL

Other lawmakers were dubious of the change, saying it ran counter to efforts to build up North Dakota’s educational standards.

“We have professional oversight for massage therapists, barbers, the medical profession … dog training, well drillers and the like,” said Sen. Tim Flakoll, R-Fargo. “Shouldn’t we have oversight for our children?”

Homeschool family standards are different than the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction Standards.  Different, but the distinction is not in negating the value of learning.

The options now are: the North Dakota House will have to approve the Senate version or the bill goes into the conference committee.

Texas homeschoolers have been persistent.

ht to Texan Susan Frederick, on the HEM-Networking list.

Here are some articles on the recent rallies against daytime curfews in Dallas and
Bedford City that were held this past week and linked in THSC‘s latest PAC news.

Opponents of daytime curfew in Bedford plan rally today Star Telegram Mar. 23, 2009
By EVA-MARIE AYALA

“We’re against the government intrusion into parental rights to dictate the activities of our own kids and the punishment of a whole community of kids … in a misguided attempt to catch a couple of truants,” said Anne Gebhart, who is helping to organize the group Tarrant County Citizens Against the Daytime Curfew.

The Bedford council reviewed the ordinance this month after home-schooling families continued to voice concerns. The ordinance does not allow children under 17, with a few exceptions, to be in a public place in Bedford between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on school days.

But Gebhart said that the way the ordinance is written, police officers have discretion as to whether or not to issue a citation. It would be up to families to fight the issue in court, which could be more of a financial burden that the $500 fine issued with the citation.

Guilty until proven innocent. Councilwoman Nail has a concern that would catch taxpayers’ concerns about government accountability:

Councilwoman Lori Nail opposes the ordinance. She does not think it violates civil liberties but thinks it has the city doing what is the school district’s and parents’ responsibility. She also worries that it puts unnecessary fear into home-schoolers.

The ACLU organizer has another legitimate concern about law enforcement’s attentions:

Tracey Hayes, field organizer for ACLU of Texas, said such ordinances unnecessarily criminalize children. She said in extreme cases, police in some cities have waited at nearby high schools and cited students who were late to school for breaking curfew. She said it takes law enforcement’s attention away from calls about burglaries or vandalism.

Demonstrators rally against Bedford daytime curfew Star Telegram Mar. 23, 2009
By EVA-MARIE AYALA

Chloe Kozak, 13, said daytime curfews make her very nervous.

She and her sister are home-schooled, and often they go on field trips to museums or businesses.

“One police officer did question me to ask why I wasn’t in school once,” she said. “It just makes me wary against ever going out on field trips.”

The Kozak family was among about 50 people rallying Monday against such ordinances at Bedford City Hall. The family lives in Euless, which has a daytime curfew, and father Robert Kozak said he worries that other cities will adopt similar measures.

“The girls went to the King Tut exhibit in Dallas, but if that city adopts the curfew too, they won’t be able to do things there any more because they will constantly be under suspicion,” he said.

Families planned on speaking  against Bedford’s ordinance at the City Council meeting last Monday. The curfew was approved in September and prohibits most children under age 17 from being in public places between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

ACLU also planned a Dallas rally.  Again, it appears that “defenses to prosecution” mean those issued a citation will need to tell it to the judge, along with the ensuing legal representation fees, et al.  Even if there were exemptions, freedom of movement by law abiding citizens is limited if one has a youthful appearance during school hours.

ACLU to stage rally today against Dallas’ daytime curfew ordinance proposal Dallas Morning News Mar 23, 2009
Dave Levinthal/Reporter

The groups are upset that Dallas wants to extend its nighttime juvenile
curfew into daytime hours.

“This is just one more way to criminalize youthful behavior and turn
kids going about the daily business of their lives to problem behavior
down the road. Ordinances like this transform law-abiding youth into
law-breakers,” ACLU of Texas Executive Director Terri Burke wrote in a
statement.

Residents, Dallas City Council members spar over daytime juvenile curfew ordinance Dallas Morning News Mar 25, 2009
Dave Levinthal/Reporter

Dallas resident Mark McCollom later argued that if the proposed ordinance is passed, “the consequences to [children] for one or two stupid mistakes could be devastating. The police have the tools today.”

District 14 council member Hunt, for her part, asked police if the majority of daytime burglaries are committed by males. Yes, police officials responded – the vast majority.

“Then, if our idea is let’s get people off the street who might commit burglaries or might commit criminal acts, I’ve got an idea, guys: Let’s put down a law that is a daytime and a nighttime curfew for men,” Hunt said. “I mean, guys, this is a slippery slope.”

Today, police may detain children suspected of skipping school, but typically return them to a Dallas school campus. No fine is involved and children do not face a court date.

Dallas law does include a nighttime curfew for juveniles, mandating that they’re off Dallas city streets between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 12:01 a.m. and 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday.

The Dallas daytime curfew vote is scheduled in May.

Regarding nighttime curfews, in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that Curfews on minors violate [the] First Amendment [ Wisconsin Law Journal 28-JAN-04 Byline: David Ziemer]

Below are some excerpts from the Hodgkins v. Peterson Appeals Court ruling:

…the plaintiffs claim that the curfew regulation creates a “chill” that imposes on their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has often noted that a realistic threat of arrest is enough to chill First Amendment rights.

More from the Hodgkins vs. Peterson case ruling:

…the new curfew leaves minors on their way to or from protected First Amendment activity vulnerable
to arrest and thus creates a chill that unconstitutionally imposes on their First Amendment rights. Consequently, we reverse the decision of the district court.

Continuing from Texas, a heads up for San Antonio was issued by THSC.  Some county leaders want to add a daytime curfew to their current nighttime curfew:

Yesterday we learned that county commissioners in Bexar County (San
Antonio) will consider adding a daytime curfew to their nighttime
curfew. According to reports, students will be guilty if they are in
public between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

More information from WOAI 3/25/09 County leaders consider adding daytime curfew for children

I’d be interested in seeing documentation of a judicial shout down of 1st Amendment rights regarding curfews.  It appears, in peering around in a non-lawyer sort of way), that if curfews are contested through the court system; parental authority and 1st Amendment comes into play against curfews.

So the existence of curfew regs might be a resulting exhaustion of constituents fighting against a steady stream of new laws and micro-management from government authorities?  (In my neck of the woods, Illinois legislators have already introduced  almost 7,000 bills this session.)

update:a Dallas daytime curfew article and pics that were too irresistible, including the little girl looking at her sign.)

Outside City Hall Today, An Afterschool Civics Lesson from Daytime Curfew Opponents Dallas Observer Mar. 23 2009
By Patrick Michels

With protest signs, stuffed animals and matching T-shirts, about 40 people — half of them kids — gathered outside Dallas City Hall this afternoon to shout down the daytime curfew proposed as a way to keep kids off the street during school hours.

The ACLU and Citizens Against the Dallas Daytime Curfew, whose advocacy and T-shirts sales we’ve covered previously, held the rally to drum up opposition to the curfew before the Dallas City Council’s public hearing on it Wednesday morning.

Tracey Hayes with the ACLU of Texas said even without the curfew, Dallas police already have plenty of tools to enforce truancy laws. “The only thing this ordinance does is create a new way to give a child, a parent or a business owner a Class C misdemeanor,” she said.

I do have to ask: When is “Afterschool” for homeschoolers?

Posted by Susan Ryan

The Law of Homeschooling Education Law Association publication was written by Brian Schwartz, counsel for the Illinois Principals Association. This monograph is particularly intriguing to this Illinois homeschooler. The state of Illinois has no homeschooling law, for instance. I reviewed a copy and have a few thoughts stemming from my immediate reservations after seeing a press release about this monograph last December.

I would guess that planting an ‘expert’ seed in a brand new homeschooling parent’s brain via this “guide” might keep folks from researching their homeschooling rights and responsibilities themselves. Homeschool advocates are frequently enlightening ill informed school administrators (including principals) about education statutes. Going against mainstream societal school norms, we have to know our rights and responsibilities, or we might have an official coming to our home threatening our family’s well being.
Why is the Associate Director/General Counsel to the Illinois Principals Association, who is also a frequent education conference/event speaker (I don’t believe those would be homeschool conferences), and past chair of the IL State Bar Association’s Education Law Section Council so wrapped up in The Law of Homeschooling? One would think all these duties, along with an active private practice specializing in the very lucrative field of education law, makes for a full schedule without dawdling about concerning a tiny minority of homeschoolers.
Besides pointing out the most disturbing Business of writing a school advisor’s ‘guide’ for public perusal, I’ll lay out a few concerns I have of Schwartz’s opinions concerning homeschooling legalities.

In his first sentence in the first chapter, Introduction to Homeschooling:

In 1925, the United States Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for parents to provide for the education of their children at home.

This statement was in reference to Pierce v. Society of Sisters. I thought the way cleared when our Constitution was approved in 1787. Constitutionally enumerated powers over US citizens, while natural rights were to reign. The states’ Constitutions could allow (or not) for education with the limited power of the federal government. But things have changed, even if the Constitution hasn’t.
This piece of Pierce’s decision was pointed out by Schwartz.

Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 29 A. L. R. 1146, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. 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 child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize an prepare him for additional obligations.

Standardization of children and their education was apparently unacceptable back in the olden days of 1925.
Mr. Schwartz’s opinion seems to be that a Supreme Court decision from Washington was the turning point allowing home education. But before and since then, natural curiosity and parents’ rational minds had found some quality means for their children to read, write and do their arithmetic.

The education of Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday is celebrated across Illinois today, is a prime example. He attended the “ABC schools by littles“ as a child. When he was a young adult, he felt the need to study English grammar and Euclid, but not because the government mandated such. He also mastered reading while walking or riding a horse. The Blackstone Commentaries and “Chitty’s Pleading, Greenleaf’s Evidence, & Story’s Equity” were checked off his reading list. Mostly self-educated Abraham Lincoln was admitted to the bar in 1837 at the age of 28.

Brian Schwartz noted reservations about homeschoolers’ bragging rights of past home education accomplishments in his Historical Overview of Homeschooling (Chapter 2):

Many homeschool advocates argue that seven early-American Presidents were homeschooled. While these assertions are true, it should be noted that these men were educated under far different circumstances than exist today. Mainly, a lack of any real opportunity for a public school education necessitated children of this era to receive their education at home. While no judgment is made as to the quality of these early homeschools, it is clear that today’s homeschool children are educated under entirely different circumstances and for entirely different reasons than existed prior to the Civil War.

It is interesting that he makes “no judgment…as to the quality of these early homeschools“. That would seem to be an important factor in the need for compulsory school attendance. I think a continuous hope of parents is that our children retain the same natural curiosity that inspired men, with poor and wearing childhoods such as Abraham Lincoln’s, to become a national leader. Some of us have turned our backs (but not our pocketbooks) on the “real opportunity for a public school education“.

This updated 67 page monograph was published and released last December to great press release fanfare. Market Watch was where it caught my attention. Did Mr. Schwartz check in with the acclaimed (in the homeschool community) law firms: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, representing HomeSchool Association of California, and Baker & Mckenzin law firm, representing California Homeschool Network, and Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, representing Christian Home Educators Association of California? These attorneys provided services (some pro bono) to the California homeschool community regarding theRachel L dustup.
That case resulting in a California Appellate Court reversing their own decision was frequently in the national news last year. The reversal was to the advantage of families regarding educational freedoms.
Maybe Mr. Schwartz did chat with pro-homeschooling legal counsel, but I see no reference to such.

The National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD) would be easy to find. Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) was referenced 4 times in this book; twice with this footnote reference: “Information in this section comes, in part, from the Homeschool Legal Defense Association website, located at www.hslda.org“. Interesting that it appears to be indirect shared information by the author with homeschool advocates. One might call it copy and paste.

The author’s preface states:

It is the author’s hope that the information herein will be used by homeschool advocates and public school officials to do what is in the interest of children, collectively and individually, and will help to ensure that each child receives and appropriate education within the context and scope of the law.

I cry foul to this supposed patronage for the homeschool family. The Illinois Principals Association is not known within most of the homeschooling association as a friend, but much too often as a foe. (There are individual principals who are supportive of homeschoolers.) However, the IL Principals Association is a lobbying group for public schools. The homeschooling community doesn’t need (and surely didn’t ask for) an official sounding “guide” from an often anti-home education/private school group, regarding the legal necessities of homeschooling. The Education Law Association’s liveilihood and funding comes from public schools. Who is this Law of Homeschooling guide supposed to serve?

~Susan Ryan

On Sunday, CBS aired another program on homeschooling, this one less strident than the network’s last memorable foray into homeschooling reportage.

The ABCs Of Home Schooling, 14 September 2008, CBS News (video report with full-screen function at site)

Despite the change in CBS’s attitude towards homeschooling parents, the report still reflects an institutional-default as the reporter’s standpoint. Institutional touch points throughout the report are:

• walking a child to school
• mom being a teacher
• August
• implied necessity of institutional support
• statistics
• college as follow-on
• asking college employee about quality of schooling
• questions about parents unsupervised in their relationship with their own children
• certification
• test-taking
• socialization
• PTA

All of those points are made in relation to institutional education, as if, despite the subject “Home schooling,” institutional schooling is the only valid kind.

I don’t know if objective reports about homeschooling are possible in a world in which testing, grading and credentializing are the ‘air’ that human development breathes. From Apgar to PISA, the lives of people during their childhoods, and beyond, are circumscribed by tests, charts and graphs.

In saying this, I don’t mean that all assessments should be abandoned. The condition of the newly born should be evaluated so that the adults caring for the helpless infant will know if the baby needs help. Also, reviewers should weigh the quality of the educational procedures supplied by taxpayers’ money (public schooling) to see if the methods used by the institutions receiving the public’s money (the schools) are effective. My point is that evaluating family life using the weights and measures appropriate for institutions is like using Interstate truck scales to weigh the ingredients for making one cake for a child’s birthday.

It is one thing for institutions and employers to confirm for themselves the ability of an applicant to function within expectations. Tests and interviews can do this. It is another thing for all learning and experience to be molded to those expectations. ’T is not the king’s stamp can make the metal better. (Burns)

The part of the report on Tau and Aurora Robinson is a pleasant human interest story. I enjoyed reading about Ms. Robinson and the travels she and Tau undertook. But, as so often happens with articles using homeschooling families as a focus, the report goes beyond the homeschooling story of one family and hems it in with the opinions of a college admissions administrator, and an entrepreneur whose website is structured in gatekeeper fashion to supply institutional-style materials from the Harcourt stable (Harcourt, Saxon, Steck-Vaughn). The human interest in the article gave way to the interests of business.

Despite the growth of the “market,” homeschooling is still about One Child’s Family. Whether that family has one child, or a baker’s dozen, homeschooling is about each child’s education. In life, the “ABCs of homeschooling” are not about college admission, brokering deals with publishing companies, or the bureaucrats from Alaska to Washington, D.C. trying to clean your house before their own is in order. Those ABCs are about the love of parents for their children, and giving the kids the materials and space to fashion their lives to the best of their abilities.

Treating children like state property, 23 August 2008, Phoenixville News, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania

In a decision being widely hailed as a victory for parental rights, a Los Angeles County court has confirmed, grudgingly, that homeschooling “is permitted under California statutes.” In so ruling, the court reversed an earlier decision that ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she could get a “legal education.”

But where’s the real victory for parents’ rights? Rights identify actions you can take without permission. A true victory would have been a judicial declaration that parents have an absolute right to control their children’s upbringing — and that they therefore don’t need government permission to educate their children as they see fit.

Hat tip to for the link to Diane Flynn Keith of UniversalPreschool.com

Protect Our Kids from Preschool, 22 August 2008, The Wall Street Journal

Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone. Kids with loving and attentive parents — the vast majority — might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.

On email lists, I’ve seen my share of messages from parents with younger children who want a ‘preschool program’ for the little ones. The schooling model is so well established in our way of viewing ‘how to raise children’ that parents feel that if they aren’t using a ‘program’ then they are frittering away precious learning time. This viewpoint is underlined by supporters of mandatory preschool. It’s as if some people won’t rest until each person’s life, from cradle to grave, supports some service industry that all the other persons are employed in: never do anything for yourself that other people can be paid for.

As it is, I think that the money proposed for mandatory preschool would be better spent on existing K – 12 schooling. Preschool as a part of the public education system …

• will divert funds from private preschools that already have a structure in place, but who then lose their customers to the ‘free’ programs
• will also divert funds from the rest of the public school system
• or will collect funding from taxpayers after taxes are raised to cover the additional cost of lowering the age of compulsory school attendance

There is no free lunch, and the mandatory preschool system will be paid for one way or the other unless, of course, all the teachers work for free, the construction firms and materials manufacturers donate all the buildings and materials, and cities absorb the costs of water, electricity, purchasing the land.

In the meantime, to ensure society doesn’t go to hell in a handbasket because the 3-year-olds missed out on mud pies (Ctrl+F to look for “mud pies”), parents can find ideas for a ‘preschool curriculum’ (otherwise known as ‘raising little kids’) in June Oberlander’s book, Slow and Steady, Get Me Ready.