That quote in the header was from a Cook County (Chicago) Circuit Court summary judgment in favor of the Chicago Virtual Charter School (CVCS).   Why were they talking about homeschooling in a virtual school judgment?  This week, the Chicago Teachers Union lawsuit claiming Chicago Public School/IL State Board of Education authorization illegalities was dismissed.  The well financed union claimed that the Chicago Virtual Charter School was actually “home based” homeschooling.

It’s been an ugly row, and somehow the Illinois homeschooling name seemed to be in the middle of this issue.  Both of these parties (the Chicago public schools, along with the CTU President, Marilyn Stewart) talked a good bit about “home schooling”.

Virtual charter school can receive public funds Chi Town Daily News June 12, 2009
BY ADRIAN G. URIBARRI

Marilyn Stewart, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, says the difference was not enough to merit public funding. Since students of the virtual school spend most of their time learning at home, she says, they are essentially home-schooled.

“For someone to take public funds to home-school their children is not right,” she says. “It should not be on the backs of a majority of our students who are in our public schools.”

As I read the excerpt below, Judge Riley seems to have made a solid, factual decision based on Illinois charter school statutes:

From a K12 Business Wire:

The judgment ensures the continued lawful operation and funding of CVCS.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs arguments fail as a matter of law. The Court determined that CVCS is not a “home-based” school and therefore not in violation of charter school law, and that the school is in full compliance with the Illinois School Code.
In the ruling, the Court emphasized the differences between the model of instruction employed by CVCS and traditional home schooling, stating:
“Home schooling is a well-known and established means of education.While the form of home schools may vary, the underlying substance of the education is decided by a student’s parents.Home schools do not have to teach according to ISBE’s [Illinois State Board of Education’s] mandated curriculum, nor are the students required to take standardized tests to meet the State’s requirements for basic skills improvement.CVCS, however, is required to teach according to the ISBE curriculum.CVCS students must meet the State’s requirements of the No Child Left [Behind] Act.CVCS is subject to fiscal oversight by the ISBE and CBOE [Chicago Board of Education].And, unlike home-schooled students, CVCS students are graded by certified teachers.”

The Chi-Town Daily News quoted the CVCS head:

“There are differences between the way we do education and traditional home schooling,” says Bruce Law, head of the Chicago Virtual Charter School. “On that difference — that’s where we were making our case.”

In this case, it was necessary for them to show that their school is different from homeschooling.  K12 is providing the CVCS curriculum, and the Virginia based company is also lobbying in our state capitol for a state-wide virtual school.  In 2002, K12′s chair made this case below about his hope that independent homeschoolers would put up and shut up.  (Bennett was also the Reagan administration’s Secretary of Education):

How William Bennett’s Public E-Schools Affect Homeschooling-Larry and Susan Kaseman
November-December 2002

The major differences between Bennett’s goals and those of most homeschoolers can be seen clearly in Bennett’s comments during an interview by Mark Standriff on WSPD radio in Toledo, Ohio, August 16, 2002.

Standriff: What kind of opposition have you folks found?

Bennett: We found opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. Some of the homeschooling people have opposed us.
Standriff: Oh really, I would think this would be right in line with their thinking.
Bennett: Well it should be. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I’ve been defending homeschoolers for twenty years. But the principle I’m defending, Mark, is school choice, parental choice. The objection they have is that it shouldn’t be involved in public funding, at all. It shouldn’t be involved with government schools, as they say. But, I’m not prepared to relinquish $400 billion and just say, well never mind, this is not money that I’m entitled to. Parents are paying that money in taxes, they should have an option within the public school system that gives them a chance to educate their children at home, but be publicly accountable as all public schools should be.

The Chicago Public Schools attorney had this explanation in a 2006 Chicago Tribune article about the Chicago Virtual approval:

Illinois law states that charter schools must be “non-home based,” which the teacher’s union argued would restrict the state from approving the virtual school. State Supt. Randy Dunn recommended the board deny the virtual school’s application based on the law’s language. But board members and proponents of the virtual school said that charter school laws enacted in the 1990s did not anticipate the growth of technology that has made virtual schools possible. Rocks, the attorney for Chicago Public Schools, said the restrictions on”home-based” charter schools mushroomed from concerns that home schools were trying to become charter schools simply to get public dollars. He presented letters from state lawmakers who voted on Illinois’ charter school law, and said their intent was not to block Internet-based schooling.

The legislators might have been been worried that Illinois homeschoolers were looking at public monies, but I have seen little evidence of that.

The union voice from Ms. Stewart is harsh.  Chi-Town Daily News: Teachers union pans virtual classroom plan July 17, 2006
BY JENNIFER KOONS

“For them to think they can address the social and emotional issues of a child without being in the same room as that child is ludicrous,” Stewart said. “You can only adequately address these issues in a classroom where you have necessary peer support and peer interaction.”

Stewart expressed concern about a lack of interaction between students and educators.

“Qualified teachers are only providing 20 percent of the lessons,” Stewart said. “Who are the certified professionals who will supervising the students when they are off-line?”

She wasn’t done there.  The Southwest News Herald had a 2006 article (not available online) quoting her union concerns about children learning at home via the Chicago Virtual Charter School:

“How are students to model behavior with a computer screen,” said Stewart.

They’re in their home, dear.  The 8 year olds don’t need to model their behavior after the 8 year old in the next door desk.

But everything, including grading, she said, is being done virtually. And Stewart is unhappy that there is “no direct supervision.”

What, Stewart asked, if there are three or four children in a household enrolled in the virtual school? Are there going to be three or four parents watching the children?

“And who are these parents or guardians that are helping the children — their grandparent who barely speaks English, or a work-at-home parent?” asked Stewart.

She loves parents….I was feeling that.

That “S” word doesn’t seem to go away.  Socializing is a bit different than School Socialization.  Apparently, the Chicago Virtual families chose getting together in their community, as opposed to the same room as folks like Marilyn Stewart.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) released a report calling for homeschoolers in England to be more closely monitiored by the local authorities. The DCSF News Centre release titled, Better Monitoring And Support For Home Educated Children In England is available here. From DCSF web site:

Children’s Minister Delyth Morgan has accepted in full the recommendations of Graham Badman’s Review of Elective Home Education in England.

On 19 January 2009 Graham Badman – former Director of Children’s Services in Kent – was asked to carry out a review of elective home education in England. The terms of reference for the review emphasized the Government’s recognition of parents’ well established right to educate their children at home. They also set out the pre-eminent right of the child to receive a suitable education in a safe environment.

The author of the report, Graham Badman, states:

This review does not argue against the rights of parents as set out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 outlined above, nor their deeply held convictions about education. I believe it would be wrong to seek to legislate in pursuit of an all embracing definition of “suitable”. However, such is the demand and complexity of 21st Century society and employment that further thought should be given to what constitutes an appropriate curriculum within the context of elective home education.

It is anyone’s guess what this will mean but doesn’t bode well. Mr. Badman appears to be frustrated by working with independent minded homeschoolers:

‘Education Otherwise’, a home education group, in a detailed set of proposals, listed recommendations they would wish to see as a consequence of the review. However, this evidence apart, what I believe to be of significance was that the immediate response of many other home educators was to disown any such series of proposals and distance themselves from the arguments put forward.

Herein I believe lies a fundamental problem, namely the absence of a representative voice for home educating parents and home educated children. The Government of Tasmania supports a system that not only gives elective home educators a voice in policy determination but also a role in the monitoring and support of other home educating families. Having raised this notion with both groups of home educators and individuals, such a structure at this time may
be a step too far but I do believe there is need for a representative body at a local level so that there is a regular exchange of views and transfer of knowledge between local authority and home educating parents and children.

The call for more regulations also cites the specter of abuse.

The number of children known to children’s social care [abuse cases] in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population. Secondly, despite the small number of serious case reviews where home education was a feature, the consideration of these reviews and the data outlined above, suggests that those engaged in the support and monitoring of home education should be alert to the potential additional risk to children. So saying is not to suggest that there is a causal or determining relationship, but simply an indication of the need for appropriately trained and knowledgeable personnel.

At this point this is a report, but, it looks like homeschoolers in England have an up hill battle facing more studies, tighter regulations and closer monitoring. The other thing in this report to note is that the general language justifying tighter regulations is similar to language accompanying educational reform in the states. (And yes, the irony of Badman calling for more regulations is just impossible ignore.)

The report to the Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families on the Review of Elective Home Education in England is available here.
(http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/homeeducation/)

BBC covers the story, Home educators made to register and Home educators angry at review

As an Illinois homeschooler, this headline below published in the Fox Valley Villages Sun definitely got my attention as a very strange possibility.  Homeschoolers are independent of the public school system, and school district policies shouldn’t have anything to do with a homeschooler’s graduation.

Policy revisions could hurt home-schoolers

Proposed changes could make it impossible for them to graduate

But after reading the article, it appears the proposed changes refer to homeschoolers who made the decision to enroll (transfer into) public schools.  According to Human Resources Asst. Superintendent Nancy Valenta, an Indian Prairie School District policy revision proposal addresses area homeschool transferees to “pass the same muster” and obtain the “same sense of rigor and standards present in the school“.

In other words, via the School Way, Valenta was pushing for a district policy revision demanding that a “district-approved external accrediting agency” certified any homeschool credits and grades transferred onto a public high school transcript.

From the article:

Home-schooling mother of three and Naperville resident Wendy Montalbano has been home-schooling for two years and does not plan on sending her children back to the public school system unless an emergency forces her to work to support the family. If that happened, credits such as an anatomy class taught by a medical doctor that her son took this year would not transfer to the district. Her son would have to repeat any classes he took while home schooled before graduating.

I wouldn’t think they’d be attracting too many homeschoolers back to that school district with this new proposal. Wendy Montalbano and Holly Ramsey (Naperville Home Educators founder/moderator) are working with school district staffer Mike Popp, to change the proposal into a more realistic version that reflects homeschoolers’ actual knowledge acquisition.

Looking at some of the Naperville area learning opportunities including libraries, 4-H, park districts, science museums and living history sites, it does seem ironic that bureaucratic stamp of approval seems necessary.  The quality of those community enterprises is evident to those who use them.

The informational good fortune continues for the children, as some of the Naperville home educators also co-op. The kids can’t be lacking with the teachers involved in this organization. Learning Vine Homeschool Co-op founder Chris Digweed notes that:

The Learning Vine has been offering quality classes to homeschoolers for many years, and is currently launching a new academic program which will begin this coming fall.   It will provide intensive, college preparatory coursework for high school students which will include AP study classes, intensive mathematics, science, and honors level literature and writing studies.

Many Illinois school districts don’t offer that multitude of college preparatory opportunities. Surely an equal or better “sense of rigor and standards present in the school” is also recognizable in private school opportunities. A practical person would think that educational due should be given even without accreditation.  But I might just be thinking outside the school building (box).

Brava to Dawn DeSart, who thought input about policy should be heard from the community taxpayers that it affects.  She appears to be a true community servant.

School board member Dawn DeSart, who questioned the policy revision in Monday’s meeting, said she would like the current policy to stand or else to have a standardized test administered to all students entering the district.”Whatever the policy says I just want it to be fair,” DeSart said. “Even though people like Wendy don’t have children in the school system, they’re still in the district – they still get a property tax bill like the rest of us do, so they definitely need to have input.

The negotiations are ongoing.  It appears that the proposal will be heard again at the June 22nd school board meeting. Let common sense prevail.  Learning is the bottom line.  Accreditation should not be.

Daytime curfew shines bright in Bedford elections Fort Worth Star-Telegram May 05, 2009
By DIANNA HUNT

Continuing controversy over the curfew has spilled into the campaigns for mayor and two City Council seats.

“It probably did bring some candidates out, initially, and for a couple of them, it’s probably still their main issue,” said Mayor Jim Story, who is running for re-election against political newcomer Kenneth Kimmons.

Says Kimmons: “It is an issue, and I think it’s an important one, but it’s not the only one.”

Accuse an opponent of a one issue candidacy and you could win points.  But I have seen activists become involved in one community issue, and then take note of how leaders operate in that and other issues at council meetings.  It’s a learning experience waiting for your turn and your issue at City Council meetings.  Sometimes it leads you to try making a positive difference by running for office.

From the S-T article:

The council approved an ordinance in September that prohibits people under 17, with a few exceptions, from being in a public place between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on school days. Violators and their parents can be fined up to $500. Businesses are required to alert officials if a youth is on their property during those hours.

The measure has drawn opposition from home-schooling families and civil libertarians, who say the measure erodes personal freedom and forces students, parents and businesses to go to court to prove their innocence. Supporters say the ordinance is having the desired effect of reducing truancy and daytime crime.

Mayor Story said that his leadership “accommodated home-schoolers in the ordinance“.  But it appears that Bedford businesses and families (not on the 9-2:30 education schedule) have to continuously respond to authorities if kids go out and about during Bedford school district hours.  The public front doesn’t appear to be a  business or family friendly community, if anyone asked me.

One City Council candidate, Jason McCaffity, ( a police sergeant)  said they should get rid of the daytime curfew.

“This is just another senseless or needless law that is on the books,” he said. “It doesn’t actually address truancy — it makes it illegal for children to be in public in the daytime.”

There are no useful “exemptions” to daytime curfew when you are guilty until proven innocent.

Home Education Magazine January-February 1997

Truancy, Curfews and Our Response- Janie Levine Hellyer

In July, 1996, the U.S. Department of Education in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice issued a “Manual to Combat Truancy.” The manual speaks of truancy as “the first sign of trouble,” and “a gateway to crime.” It encourages communities to involve parents, ensure that students face firm sanctions for truancy, create meaningful incentives for parental responsibility, establish ongoing truancy prevention programs in school, and involve local law enforcement in truancy reduction efforts. The manual then goes on to describe what it calls “successful models of new anti-truancy initiatives” in communities across the nation. Statistics are provided that hold up truancy prevention efforts beside crime reduction figures. Sources for funding, training and technical assistance to communities are offered. In response, communities across the country are setting in place ordinances and regulations. In early October, we asked families to tell us what they were seeing and how the new regulations were affecting their families and communities. [Continue reading the homeschoolers' observations of curfew regulations at the HEM site and within News-Commentary archives.]

Home Education Magazine March-April 1999

Taking Charge- Curfews and Homeschoolers
Larry and Susan Kaseman
As homeschoolers, we need to be informed about daytime curfews for several reasons.

* Although only a few communities have enacted curfews so far, the number is increasing.

* Curfews undermine everyone’s basic freedoms.

* Our efforts to oppose curfews are much more likely to be effective if we act now, before curfews are proposed in our community, or at least are prepared to act immediately if they are proposed in our community.

* We may be drawn into debates about how curfews can be made less inconvenient for homeschoolers. This shifts the focus away from the serious issues. There are no “good” curfews. [Continue reading at the site]

Tennessee’s Senator Dewayne Bunch is sponsoring  legislation that: requires that diplomas issued by home schools be recognized by all state and local governmental entities as having the same rights and privileges of diplomas issued by public school systems.

This diploma issue along with Tennessee Department of Education interference with homeschoolers, has carried over from last year.  It appears that one governmental agency with a bias, talking to other governmental agencies, can deem homeschooling diplomas insufficient to be a daycare worker. Inter-agency networking at its worst?

Last year, Valerie blogged it here:

Category IV diplomas in Tennessee

and here:

Tennessee diploma discussion

According to Kay Brooks’ 2009 Legislation updates, the bill has currently passed out of the Education Committee and is scheduled for a full Senate vote this evening.

Update- The Senate bill passed.

Bill to give equal weight to home school diplomas Fox 17
May 04, 2009

Diplomas issued in home schools in Tennessee would have the same weight as those given by public schools under a proposal that has passed the Senate.

The measure sponsored by Republican Sen. Dewayne Bunch of Cleveland was approved 30-0 Monday evening.

HB0431 is an affiliated House bill  and is scheduled to be heard in the Rules Committee on Wednesday, May 6.  This year, Kay Brooks said that the Rules Committee is chaired by a former homeschooling dad, Representative Bill Dunn.

More about this year’s legislation on equivalent diplomas is on Red Hat Rob’s (Shearer) blog:

Tennessee’s jihad against homeschoolers

The Tennessee Education Association also has an opinion:

The diploma issue also raises serious concerns around
standards and accountability since the home school “teacher” has very minimal requirements placed on them by the state of Tennessee.

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.

A trio of bills seem to be successfully working their way through the WA legislature.

WA Bill targets public info about Wash. homeschoolers Seattle Post-Intelligencer March 23, 2009
By DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP

SEATTLE — Parents who homeschool their children have asked Washington
lawmakers to exempt their registration forms from state public
disclosure laws. The Legislature appears poised to grant their request.

HB 1288 is a House bill: Exempting the annual parental declaration of intent to home school from the public disclosure act.

A brief summary of HB 1110 is on the legislative website:

School districts may not disseminate advertising, marketing, or other unsolicited information about learning programs offered by the school district to parents who have filed the statutorily required declaration of intent regarding home-based instruction. “Learning programs” includes, but is not limited to, digital learning programs, part-time enrollment opportunities, and other alternative learning programs. School districts may respond to parents’ requests for information. General mailings or newsletters sent to all households in a district are not covered by the prohibition.

HB 1110 and 1288 passed out of the House unanimously and moved out of the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education on the 23rd.

Again, from the P-I article:

Exemptions to state public disclosure laws have become increasingly common.

When Washington’s public records laws were approved by voters in 1972,
there were only 10 exemptions allowing government records to be kept
secret. Since then, the list has grown to more than 300.

Rowland Thompson, executive director for Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, said his organization does not oppose this new exemption because the information contained in the annual declaration of intent to homeschool, which is filed with school districts, can be obtained elsewhere.

These  forms have the homeschooled child’s name/age, address and phone number. One would want to ask how children’s information could be obtained elsewhere?

From the Seattle article:

State education officials know of nearly 20,000 Washington school children who are educated at home, but suspect that number is low because some districts do not report homeschooling numbers to the state.

School districts not reporting homeschooling numbers to the state?  That seems very unusual as most bureaucrats LOVE statistics and they love to know where those numbers live.

But maybe Washington is different.

Last excerpt from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The second bill she [DiAnna Brannan, a volunteer lobbyist for the Christian Homeschool Network of Washington] spoke in favor of would prevent school districts from using the information gathered through the homeschool form to send targeted, but unsolicited mail concerning learning programs offered by the school district such as online or part-time classroom education.

The Washington Homeschool Organization’s Legislative update says that there is a 3rd Senate bill [Senate Bill 5661] that is a companion bill to HB 1288.

It regards exempting the annual parental declaration of intent to home school from the public disclosure act. It has been referred to the Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education.

Both Washington homeschool group websites state support of these bills.

The above quote is from an Illinois bill [HB 2448- Remote Educational Programs] sponsored by House Representatives David Miller, Darlene Senger, Robert Pritchard, Jerry Mitchell and Jehan Gordon .  Here’s the synopsis and as in so many other Illinois bills, “a fiscal note may apply”.

Amends the School Code. Allows a school district, by resolution of its school board, to establish a remote educational program. Defines “remote educational program” as an educational program delivered to students in the home or other location outside of a school building that meets specified criteria. Provides that days of attendance by students in a remote educational program may be claimed by the school district and shall be counted for general State aid purposes in accordance with the State aid formula provisions of the Code. Effective immediately.

Miller and Gordon are Democrats.  Mitchell, Pritchard and Senger are Republicans. Representative Mitchell serves as the Republican spokesperson of the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee.
This brand new section presented in this bill has the usual language that teacher unions like: certificated instructors required, along with clock hours for the money.

(3) The remote educational program is delivered by instructors that meet the following qualifications:
(A) they are certificated under Article 21 of this Code
(B) they meet applicable highly qualified criteria under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; and
(C) they have responsibility for all of the following elements of the program: planning instruction, diagnosing learning needs, prescribing content delivery through class activities, assessing learning, reporting outcomes to administrators and parents and guardians, and evaluating the effects of instruction
(4) The school district has in place a system to  calculate the number of clock hours a student is participating in instruction in accordance with the remote educational program.

There is a troubling piece that seems to codify parental roles in their homes.

(6) The remote educational program is at all times under the direct supervision of a parent, guardian, or  other responsible adult identified in the approved remote educational plan. The parent, guardian, or other responsible adult may engage only in non-teaching duties not requiring instructional judgment or the evaluation of students. The parent, guardian, or other responsible adult shall be designated by the school district as non-teaching personnel or volunteer personnel.

When do “clock hours” start and stop when a child is learning at home?  How are those hours determined?

Apparently this was the first of a procession of bills to open up a state-wide virtual public school to replace the IL Virtual High School.  Colin Hitt (IL Policy Institute) wrote an informative piece about Private Sector Educators, Public School Students

Facing massive enrollment growth, the Illinois State Board of Education requested proposals in December 2008 for an outside provider to assume management responsibilities of the Illinois Virtual High School.  The new management firm will oversee the expansion of IVHS into the new Illinois Virtual School – an online portal for students in grades 5 through 12.

The Wisconsin Parents Association wrote a piece (pdf) about the Wisconsin Virtual School and public monies heading towards a Virginia company:

Fact Sheet: How Virtual Charter Schools Threaten Public Schools

HB 3743 is a new Virtual Public School Acts bill and there is a troubling “home-school” portion in the bill. The sponsor for this bill is Representative Chapa LaVia.  The bill is set for a hearing in the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee tomorrow morning.
It has a whole section related to the “home-schooled”:

Did the homeschooling community ask for all of this attention in a bill related to public school at home?  I should note that in HB 2448 (passed out of the Committee), it is stated that: “The home or other location outside of a school building shall not be deemed to be a public school facility. ”

My question is this: Who’s watching out for homeschoolers?  This legislative/legal quest to poke around trying to find what works educationally for children, by seemingly trying to mimic what works for independent homeschoolers could be counter-productive.

Homeschooling successes have often occurred because no governmental strings were attached and nothing is holding back an individual child’s educational needs in the home.  Besides shooting the “home-schooled” out from under the much larger Illinois private school umbrella with the language in HB 3743, these educational statutes/bills are codifying what family homes are or aren’t and what parental roles should and shouldn’t be when and where.

All this codification of “the home”.  With due respect to good intentions, we should be paying very close attention to every word inserted into these bills. Let’s not throw the little bits that do work under the school bus.

Posted by Susan Ryan

Cross posted at the Illinois Review

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

HEM Editorial: While the public school programs have effectively served the needs of some families, it is unwise to allow the perception to grow that they are equivalent to homeschooling. The very construct of these public school programs runs counter to the ability of families to handcraft an education for their children.