CBS News’ Political Hotsheet has an article about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:

31 GOP Senators Oppose U.N. Children’s Rights Convention
by Brian Montopoli – 36 comments

Thirty-one Republican senators are cosponsoring a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to the conservative group ParentalRights.org, which is pushing the resolution.

The resolution, which you can read here, states that the convention “undermines traditional principles” of U.S. law and calls efforts to sign on to the treaty “contrary to principles of self-government and federalism.” It says the convention should not be put before the Senate for a vote.

As Mother Jones reports, the legally-binding U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was issued in 1989 to establish rights across country lines for citizens under the age of 18. The only members of the U.N. not to have signed on are the U.S. and Somalia, though the latter plans to ratify it this year.

American conservatives have long opposed ratification out of fear that it will impinge on their right to raise their children as they see fit. Among the complaints on the ParentalRights.org website, which is led by homeschooling advocate Michael Farris, is that under the treaty parents “would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings” to their kids.

Continue reading this article at the link above, and note the lengthy and informative comments at the end of the article.

In an article for the July 8th issue of Education Week titled Conservative Candidates Take Aim at Federal K-12 Role, Alyson Klein writes:

The conservative currents roiling the 2010 midterm election season bring with them a new group of Republican congressional candidates who are outspoken about their desire for a limited federal role in education policy and funding.

For many, the prime target is the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic-stimulus program passed by Congress in February 2009, which provided some $100 billion for public education.

And in some cases, candidates have taken a page from a decades-old conservative playbook, pushing policies that would strengthen the rights of parents to homeschool their children—and even urging the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education, a position once favored by President Ronald Reagan’s administration.

Read the entire article at the link above.

Education Week’s site has another piece on the future of education, this one on assessements:

Led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, a panel of experts outlined a comprehensive system that includes summative and formative tests of higher-order thinking skills, reflecting a marketplace that they say places increasing value on such skills.

They urged a move away from of multiple-choice tests that demand factual recall, toward the development of a set of deeper, more analytical questions, tasks, and projects that ask students to solve and discuss complex problems.

~~~

Such assessments, Ms. Darling-Hammond said, can be “of, for, and as learning.” They can “embody” content standards, she said, not just approximate them. Because teachers would help create and score the assessments, and the assessments would be pegged to good-quality content standards, an aligned teaching-and-learning system would take shape that would help teachers adjust instruction in real time and help district and state administrators plot longer-term education strategy, the experts said.

I was along with what I was reading as a recognition of the limits of tests and respect for learning styles. But, when I got to, “assessments would be pegged to good-quality content standards” the warning bells went off and I immediately cooled to the idea.

Common Standards

The portrait of assessment, fleshed out in a paper by Ms. Darling-Hammond that draws on assessment practices in the United States and abroad, was presented at a discussion organized by two Washington-based groups, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. They have enlisted the support of 48 states to devise common content standards designed to ensure college and career readiness.

From the paper cited, Assessment Systems that Support High-Quality Learning:

Over a number of years, CCSSO [Council of Chief State School Officers] has been working with key stakeholders to develop a set of principles for student assessment systems. These principles suggest that the student assessment process should be considered as a system that supports a variety of purposes, such as informing learning and instruction, determining progress, measuring achievement, and providing partial accountability information.

I do not intend to try and unpack Ms. Darling-Hammond’s paper. However, with what seems to be an underlying deference for “key stakeholders” and a blinding lack of respect for kids and families, I am concerned that “content standards” is a pandora’s box in waiting.

Read the EdWeek piece here.

Nothing directly impacting homeschoolers yet, but.. But what really?

There are powerful forces at play with a vested interest in the institution of education. Couple calls for legislative reform with the common standards initiative, mix it up with the mad dash for the money, and homeschoolers can not afford to ignore these reforms, panic about them, nor play follow the leader figuring their interests will be taken care of.

U.S. Department of Education Opens Race to the Top Competition

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today released the final application for more than $4 billion from the Race to the Top Fund, which will reward states that have raised student performance in the past and have the capacity to accelerate achievement gains with innovative reforms.
~~~~~~~~

The application requires states to document their past success and outline their plans to extend their reforms by using college- and career-ready standards and assessments, building a workforce of highly effective educators, creating educational data systems to support student achievement, and turning around their lowest-performing schools.

The $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund is an unprecedented federal investment in reform. Duncan will reserve up to $350 million to help states create assessments aligned to common sets of standards. The remaining $4 billion will be awarded in a national competition.

To qualify, states must have no legal barriers to linking student growth and achievement data to teachers and principals for the purposes of evaluation. They also must have the department’s approval for their plans for both phases of the Recovery Act’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund prior to being awarded a grant.

The final application released today includes significant changes to the proposal released by the U.S. Department of Education in July. After reviewing responses to the draft proposals from 1,161 people, who submitted thousands of unique comments, ranging from one paragraph to 67 pages, the U.S. Department of Education restructured the application and changed it to reflect the ideas of the public.

“The public’s input on this application was invaluable to us,” Duncan said. “The comments helped us clarify that we want states to think through how they will create a comprehensive agenda to drive reform forward.”

States are after the money – an overview from Christian Scinece Monitor:

Schools sprinting to win Obama’s Race to the Top billions

And articles, editorials and opinions from the states:

Liftoff: CA State Senate Passes Race to the Top Education Reforms

Editorial: Don’t let propaganda and fear prevent Michigan from winning $600 million for state education
Bogus fears shouldn’t prevent adoption of reforms to gain $600 million for schools

Minnesota poised to get major federal education grant
Experts say the state’s history of innovation in education give it a competitive edge in the race for a slice of the $4.35 billion stimulus pie.

Rules for Race To The Top Funds Could Hurt NY

North Carolina Launches New Race To The Top Website
Source: Governor of North Carolina Posted on: 9th November 2009
RacetotheTop.nc.gov will seek input on educational innovation and reform.

State to pursue school reform grant
By Diane Knich – The (Charleston) Post and Courier

A sinking feeling about the ‘race to the top’
By Russ Dondero
The Forest Grove News-Times (Oregon)

Gov. Gregoire highlights local schools meeting goals of Race to the Top initiative

Wisconsin could be a contender: State lawmakers position the state to land a piece of Obama’s $4.3 billion education package

Most encouraging line (from the Governor of MI’s site): “The Obama Administration is requiring each grant submittal be signed by the state’s governor, state superintendent and education board chair.”

In formal remarks at James C. Wright Middle School in Madison Wisconsin, President Obama outlined the federal government’s 4.3 billion dollar Race to the Top awards. His presentation defined “four challenges that our country has to meet for our children to outcompete workers around the world, for our economy to grow and to prosper, and for America to lead in the 21st century.”

These are defined on White House blog as:
• transforming our lowest-performing schools
• using timely information to improve the way we teach our children
• outstanding teachers and principals in our classrooms and our schools
• higher standards and better assessments that prepare our kids for life beyond a classroom

Excerpts from his remarks:

America’s national mission: improving our schools not in unrealistic ways, not in abstract ways, not in pie-in-the-sky ways — in concrete ways we are putting our resources behind the kinds of reforms that are going to make a difference.

~~
And I want to get into some details about this because I want you, as parents, as well as the educators, to understand what the data and the science and the studies and the research show actually make a big difference in terms of school improvement — because that’s what we are basing this stuff on. We didn’t just kind of make it up, didn’t just do it because it sounded good, this is what the research shows is really going to make a difference.

~~
The first measure is whether a state is committed to setting higher standards and better assessments that prepare our children to succeed in the 21st century. And I’m pleased to report that 48 states are now working to develop internationally competitive standards — internationally competitive standards because these young people are going to be growing up in an international environment where they’re competing not just against kids in Chicago or Los Angeles for jobs, but they’re competing against folks in Beijing and Bangalore.

~~
I also challenge states to align their assessments with high standards — because we should — we should not just raise the bar, we should prepare our kids to meet it. There’s no point in having really high standards but we’re not doing what it takes to meet those standards. And I want to be clear. This is not just about more tests, because I know that in the past people have been concerned about, you know, is this about standardized tests, or are we going to have our young people being taught to the test? That’s the last thing we want.

~~
And that’s why the fourth measure we’ll use in awarding Race to the Top grants is whether a state is focused on transforming not just its high-performing schools, not just the middle-of-the-pack schools, but the lowest-performing schools. (Applause.) We’ll look at whether they’re willing to remake a school from top to bottom with new leaders and a new way of teaching, replacing a school’s principal if it’s not working, and at least half its staff — (applause) — close a school for a time and then reopen it under new management, even shut down the school entirely and send its schools — send its students to a better school nearby.

These remarks are about public schools but that gives little comfort that homeschoolers will not get swept up in this reform. For homeschoolers, assessments and data collection are the broom and dustpan of this reform. Homeschoolers have seen many reforms and survived, but, not without study, understanding and effort.

Some reading:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative

Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative

Homeschooling in the Age of Obama

Common Core Standards In The News

Many homeschoolers are on the watch for back door legislation or other attempts to limit our families’ freedoms. “Universal” anything often gives us a heads up. Politicians discuss the potential advantages. Interested lobbyists look to see what they can get out of the deal.
HSLDA (a homeschool member financed organization) often warns of government policies sneaking in that will affect homeschoolers’ rights and liberties. This Virginia based group seems to understand these efforts so well. They themselves often use the practice out and about our country’s Capitol.

It’s been recently discovered that the Home School Legal Defense Association slipped in their business plan directing any military career interested homeschoolers to their site. Again.

Valerie Bonham Moon (The Military Homeschooler) posted this in 2006: The Army Recruiting Command changed its homeschool URL

Currently, and from the NATIONALGUARD.com Homeschool Eligibility Requirements

Current military policy requires homeschool graduates to be treated just like any other high school grad. In January, 2006 President Bush signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act that requires all four branches of the Armed Forces to institute a uniform recruitment policy for homeschool graduates that includes an exemption for homeschool graduates from any requirement to have a secondary school diploma or a GED.

*Links on this site do not constitute an endorsement by the Army National Guard

If the National Guard inserts a HSLDA logo and a link to the interested party’s site, I would say that is an engaged endorsement. You must click over to the HSLDA site to read the National Guard eligibility requirements.

These particular homeschool eligibility requirements don’t feel like a warm and fuzzy exemption. Rather, it seems like a Graham Badman produced nightmare, as in his Recommendation #4 calling for a representative opinion“. (I think GB forgot to consult home educators/parents for input about the well being of homeschooled children.) If you wonder why I bring up the Badman Report, I’ll mention that HSLDA is using that British Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England for another Parental Rights Amendment trumpet call. One of their arguments is that: The Badman report is a stark reminder of how government officials in an English-speaking democracy have interpreted the UNCRC. It’s clear that the right to homeschool in America will be negatively impacted if the U.S. Senate ever ratifies the UNCRC.

Some other thoughts are here about the Parental Rights Amendment:

Taking Charge – Larry and Susan Kaseman
Yes – Parental Rights No – Constitutional Amendment

But back to the current iron in the fire.  Maybe I don’t understand all of the bureaucratic gobbledygook on the HSLDA site regarding National Guard eligibility. But looking at these requirements, if my children wanted to join the National Guard, we would be jumping through hoops that were not there before HSLDA involvement.

Why is HSLDA interested?

Apparently the interest stems from the potential business offerings. Just as in the HSLDA written, federal legislation introduced in 2005 (109th Congress HR 3753/S 1691). Here’s that pertinent federal legislative documentation illustrated under Section 10 Sec. 503a. Recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students:

(5) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the graduate’s home-school status by the Home School Legal Defense Association or a State or county home-school association or organization.’.

There’s that third party verification of homeschool status again, just as in the eligibility requirements for the National Guard Homeschool Path to Honor. National Guard Requirements: “A homeschool diploma and transcript from the parent(s) or guardian(s) accompanied by a third party verification memorandum.”

My family (and many others) would have to join a homeschool support group and seek their approval of our eclectic educational resources and successes. In the eligibility requirements, HSLDA points applicants to their listing of homeschool associations that are selective, Christian based support groups that do not encompass all of the very diverse homeschooling population.

What homeschooling organization would lobby for third party verification of a family’s learning successes while publicly proclaiming that they support limited government? What sort of homeschool group would narrow homeschoolers’ boundaries into adult ventures? Does HSLDA lobby for homeschoolers or for new business?

More information and history about this issue is provided from Happy As Kings‘ National Guard and HSLDA:

The National Guard entry requirements for homeschoolers must be re-written without preference given to HSLDA, and the requirements must not be primarily hosted at an off-site page from the National Guard site.

Contact information.

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

Search at Thomas, if interested.  At this point, any information about these resolutions seems to be of the order of “fyi.”  NewsComm is a day late and a dollar short in reporting this, but the NewsComm staff (me, 2 cats and the granddog) just didn’t catch it at the time.  Hat tip to Mary, whose staff is Mary and the spirit of her late-beloved pooch Reba.

House Resolution 1076 was introduced 3 April 2008 by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-California).  The resolution has 56 co-sponsors.  The actions have been:

• 4/3/2008: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Senate Resolution 572 was introduced May 21, 2008 by Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), and co-sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma).  So far, the resolution is still in committee:  “Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.”

Both resolutions have near-identical language, with the only difference that I saw being that the Senate version calls specifically upon the Court of Appeal in California’s Second District, while the House version “calls upon the courts.”

The Senate version follows:

Title: A resolution calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

RESOLUTION Calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Whereas the modern homeschool movement in the United States demonstrates that homeschooled children are a vital component of the United States education system;

Whereas homeschool graduates act responsibly as parents and as students in colleges and universities, are valuable in the workplace, and are productive citizens in society at large;

Whereas many studies confirm that children who are educated at home score considerably above the national average on nationally-normed achievement tests, and above the average on both the SAT and ACT college entrance exams;

Whereas homeschooled children, such as 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, are receiving national recognition for their victories in national competitions, such as national spelling bees and geography bees, and are being highly sought after by nationally-recognized colleges and universities;

Whereas homeschooling families contribute significantly to the cultural diversity important to a healthy society;

Whereas notable individuals such as Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, Ansel Adams, Charles Dickens, and General Douglas MacArthur all received a high-quality education at home;

Whereas over 2,100,000 children are being homeschooled nationwide;

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, in the cases of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);

Whereas on February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, issued an opinion in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), that homeschool parents who did not hold a teaching credential could not legally homeschool their children;

Whereas the initial decision by the Court of Appeal in that case would have had an adverse impact on approximately 166,000 children in California who are receiving a quality education at home; and

Whereas on March 25, 2008, the Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case, with respect to the decision that required parents to hold a teaching credential in order to legally homeschool their children: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate–

(1) commends the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, for allowing a rehearing in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); and

(2) calls upon the court to uphold the Supreme Court’s opinion that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

ParentalRights.org (a subsidiary of HSLDA) sent out an email that another resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to protect parental rights was introduced into the House of Representatives by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan). Search for “H. J. RES. 97″ at the Thomas site (the site does not save searches).

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article –

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’.

It has been 12 years since the first proposed parental rights amendment was introduced.

This latest introduction, according to the ParentalRights.org website’s page, “Threat from Federal Courts,” is needed because of the decision in the Troxel v. Granville ruling. (underlining added)

But despite these strong statements and a favorable outcome, the Troxel case also contains some sobering warnings about the future of parental rights in America.

…

The vital relationship between child and parent is far too precious to be entrusted to such slender odds, but if we rely on the Supreme Court to guarantee our freedoms, these are precisely the odds we are risking.

This statement stands in opposition to an analysis at the HSLDA website in 2001, soon after the Troxel ruling.

U.S. Supreme Court: Parents’ Rights Are Fundamental: A Review of Troxel v. Granville

On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinionon parental liberty. The decision was Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
…
The U.S. Supreme Court cited a long history of their decisions upholding parental rights as fundamental.
…
Parents battling oppressive state regulations and invasions of their families have a clear decision that upholds their parental rights. In essence, this decision means that the government may now not infringe parents’ right to direct the education and upbringing of their children unless it can show that it is using the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

How odd that the ruling was lauded in 2001, but is now the basis for introducing another Parental Rights Amendment. Given that the first Parental Rights Amendment was introduced in 1995, and Troxel was decided in 2000, why wasn’t it a danger then? Has something happened in the past seven years to change the effect of the decision?

The following are excerpts from previous discussion about parental rights amendments:

Parental Rights Measure Not So Simple, 4 November 1996, The New York Times, New York, New York

”It’s explosive in its ambiguity,” Gov. Roy Romer, a Democrat, said at a news conference in mid-September. ”The only thing certain about it is that it’s going to lead to very expensive lawsuits. This is a full employment bill for lawyers.

Issues Raised by the Parental Rights Initiatives, People for the American Way

Clogging the Courts

The potential for costly, repetitive and unnecessary lawsuits is in itself a cause for concern. Parental rights legislation is often characterized by opponents as a “lawyer’s full-employment act,”59 referring to the endless lawsuits that will result from such vaguely worded legislation. This is not a baseless concern, as even amendment proponents have stated that is their intent. Jeffrey Bell recently stated that the amendment was “meant to be general,” and “meant to be argued out in court.”60 Leah Delay, leader of the Colorado initiative effort, has stated, “If we’re in court for the rest of our lives, thank goodness.” Tom Tancredo, Independence Institute founder and leading parental rights amendment supporter, echoes this: “The reality is that almost everything [in the amendment] will have to be adjudicated.”61 A lawyer for the Georgia-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, involved in that state’s parental rights push, stated “We are out to make bad law in order to provoke legislatures to repeal bad laws.”62

So here we have a membership group staffed preeminently by lawyers sponsoring a bill similar to other bills that have been characterized as a way to provide “full employment for lawyers.” Hmmm.

Other discussions of parental rights amendments and the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child are at:

• U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Belgium’s homeschool climate, and the United States Constitution
• NHELD’s bulletins on the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

At the entry above, “NHELD’s bulletins on the U. N. Convention …”, the part about “Non-self-executing treaties — think presidential signing statements,” is interesting.

As far as repeat introductions for amendments to change the Constitution of the United States, if this one fails, there will probably be others. I’m reminded of a comment by then-HSLDA lawyer Scott Somerville concerning military enlistment of homeschoolers.

Scott Defisks HoNDA Sect. 10: Military Recruiting

But, speaking for HSLDA again, our 80,000 member families are united in opposition to a “just say no” policy to homeschool recruits. We aren’t going to drop this issue.

I doubt they’ll drop the parental rights issue either.

Homeschooling parents hear much about parental rights from homschooling organizations, and how the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used against them in their homes. What we usually don’t hear is what the people in favor of the Convention think about that opposition.

The following linked PDF file gives an overview (minus the workshop that went with it) from the point of view of people in favor of the Convention.

I find it hard to be either 100% in favor of the Convention (because legislation can go in strange directions), or 100% against the Convention (because there are practices concerning children that I think need to change). But isn’t that the way it usually goes?

This overview includes the “non-self-executing treaties” referred to earlier.

Mobilizing Communities for Ratification, 18 – 20 May 2006

Why is the United States one of only two nations in the entire world that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Who would oppose a treaty designed to protect children? This workshop will try to answer those questions by delving into the popular and political arguments made against U.S. ratification of the CRC. Panelists will describe the opposition and provide examples of the rhetoric used to discredit the Convention. In addition, panelists will discuss possible legal and political responses to opposition arguments.

Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child — Exploring Counterarguments and Seeking Clarification (43 pages), by
– Mark Engman, Director, Office of Public Policy and Advocacy, U.S. Fund for UNICEF
– Susan Kilbourne, Esq., Vice President for Advocacy and Outreach, Voices for America’s Children
– Nury Nelson, Advisor, Homeschoolers UN Club

Political Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the CRC

Most from conservative, Religious Right organizations:

– Christian Coalition
– Concerned Women for America
– Eagle Forum
– Family Research Council
– Focus on the Family
– Home School Legal Defense Association
– John Birch Society
– National Center for Home Education

…

Homeschoolers and the CRC

Is Homeschooling legal in the U.S.?
– Yes, homeschooling is legal in all 50 States and U.S. Territories.

How many homeschoolers live in the U.S.?
– Latest figures from National Center for Education Studies: 1.1 million in 2003
– HSLDA claims to represent 1.7 million homeschoolers in the U.S.
– The number could be higher… over 2 million

…

How the CRC Really Works

– The CRC places obligations on the States Parties the governments of the countries that ratify it to protect children against governmental actions and intrusions.
– The CRC obligates governments to provide certain programs for children’s benefit, setting standards for governmental policies regarding children.

[emphasis in original]

posted by Valerie