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

From the Star-Telegram:

Under the curfew, people under 17, with a few exceptions, are not allowed to be in a public place in Bedford and Euless between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on school days. Violators and their parents can be fined up to $500.

Bedford leaves daytime curfew in place Mar. 11, 2009 Star-Telegram

Parents who home-school their children have said that the curfew erodes their personal freedom and holds students, parents and businesses guilty until proven innocent, perhaps forcing them to go to court to avoid paying fines.

Officers are required to determine that a student is not home-schooled before writing a citation, city officials said.

Since daytime curfews are one of my pet peeves as a homeschooler, I’ll add some more provincial information about Rockford, Illinois.  That municipality initiated a daytime curfew in 2006.  The success is questionable.
From the Rockford Register Star:

Truancy rates again on the rise in Rockford (01/19/08)

But a year after Rockford schools teamed with the city of Rockford, Winnebago County and the United Way in a unique anti-truancy partnership, a mid-year report shows truancy — a predictor of criminal behavior and high school dropouts — is once again on the rise.

The comparisons between the two cities in two different states are irresistible in these articles.  From the March 11th Texas Star-Telegram article:

Since the curfew was enacted in September, the city has written two citations, while the number of unexcused absences districtwide dropped to 20,055 from 28,876 a year ago, officials said.

That reduction was also the story the first year the Rockford daytime curfew was initiated. Truancy rates dropped nearly 30%.  But then increased almost 11% the next year. Determined teens will find a way out of the building.

7.7% of Rockford students were truant in 2008, 2 years after the daytime curfew was initiated.  The Rockford school district offers ids to homeschoolers.

Isn’t that helpful of them?

posted by Susan Ryan

I haven’t seen any mention of this truancy case on Missouri email lists or in previous news alerts, so I had to dig for background on it. The comments at various sites added to the overall picture of the case, and this situation almost looks like one of those unfortunate examples of a continuing collection of bad choices, poor skills, and anger stirred in the crucible of compulsory school attendance.

Even though ‘homeschooling’ is mentioned, I saw no indication in the news reports that the prosecutors pursued the case because of ‘homeschooling’ itself. Of course, this is only a reflection of what has been reported, and non-homeschoolers can be unaware of what needs to be looked at concerning ‘homeschooling’ itself. In Missouri the crucial item would be the daily log of activities. No record = no defense.

Parent gets 2 days in jail for child’s truancy, 10 Jun 2008, KSPR, Springfield, Missouri

Tuesday Kathleen Casteel was sentenced for violating the state’s truancy law. According to Assistant Prosecutor Joe Knipp, Casteel’s son missed nearly half the school days at Reed Middle School last year.

Background:

Mother sentenced to jail for son’s truancy, 11 June 2008, News-Leader.com, Springfield, Missouri

He also ordered Casteel –who has home schooled her son since his enrollment was revoked from Springfield Public Schools –to put the child back into a public school.

That provision came after prosecutors argued Casteel was not home schooling her son in compliance with state law, something defense attorneys contested.

…

Fitzsimmons’ order that Casteel enroll her son in public school also is an aberration, according to Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education spokesman Jim Morris.

“That is a rare step,” Morris said, noting that neither his office nor many school districts regulate home schooling. “The state has always had a hands-off policy.”

Give truancy trial a meaning, 26 April 2008, News-Leader, Springfield, Missouri

No other school scofflaw in memory has been so brazen as to push the attendance police to this degree. None had demanded a trial in front of a panel of her peers. None had shouted so publicly: This just wasn’t my fault.

So what will a chronicler of history say? What does this mean? Was she martyr or malingerer?

…

The case left the public defenders in the case asking at trial: What purpose does this serve? Observers also ask whether parents like Casteel face a Catch-22: use too much force to get a kid to go to school, you get charged with abuse. Don’t get the kid to school, you can be charged under the truancy law.

Greene County Prosecutor Darrell Moore defends the decision by the school district, embraced by his office, to prosecute Casteel.

Mother from Springfield could get week in jail for son being truant, 24 April 2008, KY3.com, Springfield, Missouri

Casteel testified that her son, who is mentally retarded, didn’t like school and often fought her efforts to make him go. She said he would throw things, leave their home through his bedroom window, and even once tried to jump out of her moving car as she took him to school. Casteel said her son said other Reed students teased him and tried to start fights with him. She also said, part of the time, her son lived with her ex-husband in Buffalo.

A district attendance advisor testified she visited Casteel’s home about 25 times, and sometimes took the boy to school with her. The advisor also said Casteel’s other children also had attendance problems, and one time she caught Casteel lying about whether the children were home. A Reed attendance secretary said she repeatedly told Casteel to call school if her son wasn’t coming, but Casteel rarely called.

In the following article, it sounds as if the townspeople have not differentiated between truancy and a daytime curfew.  The effectiveness of homeschooling is also touched on, although whether or not children learn well at home, as people generally assume they do at school, has nothing to do with the suspected juvenile crime concerning the citizens.

Home schooled children aren’t truants, home schooler says, 28 May 2008, Picayune Item, Picayune, Mississippi

Rigney addressed the school board for the Picayune Municipal Separate School District at its noon meeting Tuesday because of concerns raised at an earlier meeting by the Pearl River County Neighborhood Watch about truancy and whether all children who are supposed to be being home schooled actually are being home schooled.

There is a difference between detaining truants, that is children who are enrolled in a school and who are playing hooky, and a daytime curfew that forbids people under a certain age to be in public during the hours between, say, eight in the morning and three in the afternoon.  One method targets specific children, the other targets all children.

However, Pearl River County Sheriff’s Dept. Chief Deputy Frank Vaccarella said later in the meeting that the sheriff’s department would like to help enforce truancy laws but now have to back off when they stop a child and the child says that it is home schooled.

Is it difficult to tell a truant from a homeschooled child?  Of course.  As yet, I haven’t read about any state that requires either group to sport an identifying symbol, temporary or permanent, so that onlookers can determine the child’s status at a glance.  Even in our identity-badge-aware society, we are not all under house arrest and allowed to be out only with permission.   

Another question I see is, what are the children doing when they are questioned?  Are they committing crimes?  Are they walking somewhere?  Are they playing in their yards?  What is it that catches the officer’s eye?  Just their presence, or their activities? 

• If the children are committing crimes, then whether they are homeschoolers on a flexible schedule, truant public school students, errant private school students, or visitors from Timbuktu, lock those kiddies up.  Crime is crime.  Don’t put up with it. 
• If the kids are meandering along, do they have Fifth Amendment rights?  I don’t mean to get between the police and wrong-doers, I’m just curious.  When they are talking to the police, do children have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, or do they say, “Yes, officer, I’m playing hooky.”  This is a dicey area because I think most of us want kids to answer police officers truthfully.  To complicate matters, are we talking about Officer Friendly talking to Timmy who is avoiding ‘that big kid’ at school, or is this Officer Krupke grilling the Jets?

If the school attendance reasons are, indeed, paramount, what prevents the school from maintaining a daily list of the names of absent students?  Can the police not be given a specific truancy phone number to call to determine if Hudson Higgenbotham III is on the list?  If Hudson is, then the officers take Hudson back to school and the principal calls Hudson’s parents.  If he isn’t, then Hudson is not a truant.  Hudson may be homeschooled, or he may be visiting relatives for the funeral of Uncle Hudson Higgenbotham, Sr. and was so overcome by the demise of his namesake that he had to take a walk to calm down.

I don’t mean to mock police officers while they do their jobs.  I just think that the relationship of kids in our society to schools, and to authority, is not clear.  Maybe to some people the changing status of children is still ’future shock.’  I’ll admit that the recent FLDS mess in Texas comes to mind, where young women who produced driving licenses to prove their ages but were taken into custody because they looked young.

Police judge criminal profiles based on who writers them, study finds, Ohio State University

“A profile is not intended to identify a specific person. A profile is only one of many tools in an investigator’s arsenal, and it is not my business to tell investigators what tools they should use.” But the results do suggest that anecdotal accounts of the accuracy of a profile are not a good basis for arguing that profiling is actually useful, [Andrew Hayes] said.

If “students” are truant, find out who the “students” are.  Don’t presume that, like the FLDS women assumed to be children, that all children are ”students.”

Backdoor Dealings: A proposed bill that would get DCF off the back of homeschooling parents is caught in a political war between competing lawmakers, 2 April 2008, Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Connecticut

There’s a bait-and-switch scam going on in the General Assembly where the homeschooling bill 162 is concerned.

Originally proposed by Rep. Arthur O’Neill, it’s supposed to clarify a legal hitch causing problems for Connecticut parents who homeschool.

Here’s the deal: when parents withdraw their children from school to teach them at home, the schools have been calling the Department of Children and Families and reporting the parents for “educational neglect.”

…

Deborah Stevenson, an attorney who heads NHELD (National Home Education Legal Defense), finds this unacceptable. “It’s not enough to accept the letter, you must consider the child withdrawn,” she argues. “Evidence is not proof.”

Besides, acceptance of the letters isn’t really the problem: “School districts were accepting them, but not considering the children withdrawn, then calling DCF and charging them with educational neglect.”

Ridgefield homeschoolers tell of trials, 30 March 2008, Ridgefield Press, Ridgefield, Connecticut

Attorney Deborah Stevenson, an education lawyer in Southbury and the executive director of National Home Education Legal Defense, told the legislature that public schools around the state had been reporting families to the Department of Children and Family after the withdrawal of children from the public schools for homeschooling.

“The bill … is needed because of the improper, coercive, and abusive actions of school officials who falsely reported, or threatened to report, more than 40 families to the Department of Children and Families in this past year alone, simply because they exercised their right to refuse unlawful demands of public school officials, and withdrew their children from the public school system…

The bill would compel school districts to unconditionally acknowledge and respect the right of parents when they exercise their right to withdraw their children from a public school, she wrote.

…

A lawyer with the State Department of Education offered a different perspective on the controversy.

We’ve got a number of different statutes that relate to home instruction, said Attorney Laura Anastacio. But essentially what we have are dual obligations. Parents have certain statutory obligations and school districts have certain statutory obligations.

Local boards of education are required to make certain that children who reside within their school districts are attending public school, or they have to contact the parent and make sure that the child is receiving equivalent instruction elsewhere.

School personnel are also “mandatory reporters under state child protection statues: They are required to report suspected cases of abuse  not just beatings, but all kinds, including the “educational abuse” of not providing a child with adequate schooling.

They have to report cases of possible educational neglect, if a child isn’t being educated. Ms. Anastasio said.

A problem with what the lawyer for the State Department of Education says is that the schools are equating home education with educational neglect. There is no indication in this report that the schools have any reason to suspect neglect except that the parents have withdrawn the children. Sounds as if bullying has left the playground and is now in the schools’ offices.

Links to reports about the current state of affairs in Connecticut are at NHELD’s Connecticut page.

The segment from Monday’s Diane Rehm program from the NPR affiliate WAMU is available online.  I listened to the program, and made notes, in the hope that I’d be able to give a capsule account of the conversation.  Fat chance.  Professor Reich mentioned “public policy,” and other speakers brought up “children’s rights” and ”parents’ rights.” 

I did some web searches for these various factors of the conversation and, to me, it seems as if some of the controversy about homeschooling (if not all of it) comes down to the ancient commotion over what people think, and who gets to tell the kiddies about ‘it’ so that the kiddies will grow up to be ‘right-thinking’ adults.  All the parts seem to be about this particular control.  Anything else seems (to me) to be a smokescreen, not specifically on this NPR program, but in the overall discussion about homeschooling.

I made a rough transcript of the discussion that, I hope, accurately reflects what the host and guests talked about.

Home Schooling, 24 March 2008, The Diane Rehm Show, WAMU, Washington, D.C.

Rob Reich giving the background on the California court ruling in Re. Rachel L.
– ruling is atypical concerning the national trend in homeschooling
– Prof. Reich thinks the “tide is turning” on homeschooling regulation (from loose to strict)
– credentialing is probably unnecessary
– agrees about lack of constitutional right to homeschool

05:25  teachers organizations in California declined to participate on this program about homeschooling

05:44  Mike Donnelly of HSLDA
– ruling is deficient
– California rules allow parental discretion in the education of children
– the ruling applies to one family
– the ruling is precedent

07:30  Gretchen Roe, homeschooling mother and Calvert School community liaison
– description of her background

08:35  question from Diane Rehm to Gretchen Roe:  “What are your qualifications?” (for teaching her own children)  Follow-up answer.

11:04  question to Mike Donnelly about how fast homeschooling might grow, and why homeschooling will grow.  Answers were academic concerns of parents, safety of children, and morals and values.

12:30 — 13:30  music

14:05  question to Rob Reich about “what kinds of qualifications” does Mr. Reich feel are necessary “for a parent to become an effective” teacher of his or her own children.  Answer is not simple because of diversity of parental motivations for homeschooling, and that private and charter school teachers do not need to be credentialed.

15:40 Rob Reich: 
– you don’t want to build public policy on anecdotes
– as to what is happening academically with homeschooled kids, the “shocking” answer is that without skills testing, we don’t know

16:47  comment from email:  parents are misguided in their attempts to shield their children; children should be educated jointly between parents and professionals

17:30  Gretchen Roe asked to respond:  homeschooled children are not cloistered; parents have the opportunity to guide their children

19:52  question to Gretchen Roe about a “typical day.”  Answer is that there is no “typical” day.

21:10  Mike Donnelly talking about Pierce v. Society of Sisters and parental responsibility

23:10  Rob Reich explaining that the rights and responsibilities most at stake are those of the children being educated.  He is against unlimited parental choice because “We, the people” have an interest in the education of children.

24:30  Rob Reich’s choice for homeschool regulation
1.  register homeschools with public authorities
2.  have regular basic skills testing
3.  have curriculums submitted for approval

25:50  Gretchen Roe thinks that Rob Reich’s priorities are logical, but that a presumption of educator priority is fallacious.

27:00  phone callfrom a Florida homeschooler in favor of regulation and twice-annual testing (mid-term and end of term)

28:52  question to Mike Donnelly about his opinion of the regulatory aspect
– Federal republic and education is a state responsibility
– states have various methods of regulation (most don’t)
– HSLDA is for freedom
– minimum of government interference

29:38  comment by Rob Reich that the dissatisfaction with public schools has built up homeschooling has nothing to do with public schools because regardless of the quality of local schools, homeschoolers would not use them.  The public school itself is the problem for homeschoolers.

31:16 music

33:34  Caller from North Carolina – rights of children; right of a child to have connection with the world in a social way; need testing; concern about developmental isolation from peers; the kids have a right to be a part of society

35:40  Gretchen Roe replies about what her family does and caller responds, “But that’s YOU.”  Caller is concerned about all the homeschooled children deprived of social contact.  “What about all of the other homeschooled children?” 

36:28  Roe replies that schools have poorly socialized children among the student body.

36:41  Rehm asks Roe how her children are socialized “on a daily basis,” and Roe produces her list of good works.  [note:  this is not to disparage Gretchen Roe.  I've had to do the same thing myself.  'Society,' in the person of whoever you happen to be talking to, does not demand an accounting of social activity from the parents of the average young person who attends school, even though that young person may not be a member of French club, the honor society, the drama club, or is not the captain of the football team.  I realize this is a radio program of adult guests meant to inform listeners, but usually participation ON the radio show is taken as an indication of activity.]

38:16  Caller:  “My concern is more about who is going to be making sure that the other children in these other families who don’t do all of these wonderful things have the opportunity to be out in the world.”

38:25  Mike Donnelly underscores Rob Reich’spoint about anecdotes not making good public policy.  Studies have been done about homeschooling looking at both academic and social areas, and homeschooled kids did as good or better on the tests than their schooled peers.  The social test (SSRS) indicates that the homeschooled kids tested have not been harmed by their homeschool experience.

39:12  Email from listener:  How well do homeschooled children score on SATs, and how well they are prepared for college?  Mike Donnelly:  Answer is statistical; the ACT record keepers report that homeschoolers score slightly above the public school average.  Also, many colleges actively recruit homeschooled graduates.  Rob Reich:  Anecdotes are not a basis for public policy; studies about homeschoolers have “varying degrees of badness.”  Asking homeschoolers to report on homeschooling is like asking tobacco companies about nicotine addiction.  The participants are self-selected, so the sampling of homeschoolers is biased toward those who feel they’ll do well on the tests.  In terms of public policy, the studies can’t be trusted.

41:40  Rehm asking Gretchen Roe if her children ever wanted to go to school.  Answer:  9-week experiment with public school because of illness.  Children became disillusioned with school attendance.

43:13  Email from listener questioning Gretchen Roe teaching six children of different ages, and asking what her qualifications are to do this, as well as teaching “chemistry” and “European history.”  Answer:  She uses Calvert’s handbook for each grade, and other resources for her teenage children.

44:50  Mike Donnelly asked about the situation in Germany.

46:15  Phone call from pro-homeschool Georgia listener on anecdotal information.  Caller says public education system is bankrupt with predatory teachers, and lack of true education, freedom, and children learning to think.

47:55  Rob Reich asking why Mike Donnelly is opposed to regulating homeschooling by regular testing.  Mike Donnelly says it is a state issue.  Rob Reich also asked about child’s rights, and what if a child wants to do something the parents object to.  Answer is that children are born into families and that parents can be trusted.

49:00 Question by Diane Rehm about any opinions by presidential candidates?

49:35:  Question by Diane Rehm to Gretchen Roe about her worries about the California court decision.  Answer included reference to the rights of children, and that those rights should be “in concert with their ages.”  The children are under their parents’ authority until they reach the age of majority.

50:55  End

One item that caught my attention more than once in this discusison was the issue of “public policy.”  This is a reference I’ve heard throughout my adult life, but not one that I ever bothered to dissect.  “Public policy” was just ‘there.’  In considering how public policy applies to private family life, I went to Wikipedia (because it’s convenient) to find out the popular opinion about “public policy.”

Policy, Wikipedia (as of 28 March 2008)

Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.

…

According to William Jenkins in Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective (1978), a policy is “a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve”. Being the author of numerous papers on the subject he is considered to be a leading authority in this field.

So if the government develops “public policy” on homeschooling, this will be what people outside a family feel is best for ‘generic children’ in specific families.  I say ‘generic children’ because public policy cannot take specific children into consideration — not even school classrooms can do that.

Despite growing up in a family, and being a parent in a family, I have no idea if there are public policies about what goes on in my family.  I know that the children were to be vaccinated because of public health concerns, that I (and they) could do some things but not others because those things were against the law, and that the buildings we lived in had to meet construction codes in order to be safe.  I know that public schools must abide by policy because they use public money and educate ‘other peoples’ children,’ but I don’t know about “public policy” issues that reach into a family to influence beliefs and ways of thinking.

Is having “public policy” — “… political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals …” — concerning homeschooling a reasonable expectation?

To paraphrase Mr. Reich, asking an educator who specializes in public policy issues and statistical studies whether or not these methods should be used to control something is like relying on the tobacco industry for reliable information about nicotine addiction.  We all have our pet peeves, and how we feel about reliance on governmental oversight skews opinion about making laws and regulations as much as being an ‘advocate’ for a particular undertaking, such as homeschooling.

posted by Valerie

Smoothing A Way Out Of School, 18 February 2008, Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut

Home-schooling advocates will be watching with interest when legislators hold a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would change the way parents withdraw their children from public school.

The proposed law would require parents to send a certified letter informing their local school superintendent of their decision, and would mandate that the school board immediately “deem the child withdrawn from school.”

State statutes do not specify how children under 16 are withdrawn from a public school.

Home-School Support, 20 February 2008, Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut

For the past two years, Formichella said she has hidden in her house, shouting through the door when people knock because she fears the person on the other side might be a state social worker coming to take her children away.

…

Within weeks of pulling her children from the public school system in 2006, Formichella received a letter from the local school superintendent requiring her to sign a form and submit more evidence that her children were being properly schooled. If she didn’t, Formichella said, she would risk a neglect investigation by the state Department of Children and Families. Formichella was frightened at first, then incensed.

“That’s a heinous, heinous thing to threaten a parent,” Formichella said outside the hearing room Tuesday. “And [the school superintendent] knew me!”

Commentary on the legislation from the Connecticut blog, Consent of the Governed.

• CT Parental Rights: School withdrawal bill hearing makes the news (includes link to public hearing video)
• More on the school withdrawal bill (commentary on the P.R. surrounding the bill)
• Withdrawal bill news links (links to news reports)

posted by Valerie

Perhaps I haven’t read the blog correctly, and I know I don’t have any inside knowledge of the statistical makeup behind the two entries, but these two bloglines, one right after the other, don’t show the same picture.

I agree with residents defending their town against criminals, but the causes and effects should be shown to have a relationship to each other.

Statistics show crime down 13% in Youngstown since ’06
Daytime curfew initiated in the city

(the reports share a URL)

The obvious question is: If crime is down from before the curfew was instituted, why is a curfew needed now? I’m not questioning the citizens of Youngstown who must live with local conditions, it’s just that the two reports don’t jibe.

I’ve begun collecting information about daytime curfews (so many topics, so little time), and so far have two reports to wade through:

• Juvenile Court Statistics 2003–2004
• Evaluation of the Youth Curfew in Prince George’s County, Maryland (2003)

If anyone is familiar with reports about daytime curfews and how effective/ineffective they are, how the curfews relate to crime statistics in general, and whether or not the daytime restrictions change when school lets out, I’d be happy to see references or URLs to the information.

posted by Valerie

I reported on a previous discussion about truancy and a daytime curfew Lincoln in December 2007.

Truancy debate to be revived, 15 January 2008, Lincoln Courier, Lincoln, Illinois

Heading into a meeting this evening with a city council committee, a group of parents who home-school their children is continuing its plea that a proposed city ordinance on truancy not be construed as “a daytime curfew.”

That point is raised in a letter Ron Denlinger sent …. Denlinger is a spokesman for the home-schoolers, …

Denlinger, who distributed copies of his letter to local news organizations, said he and the other parents realize that truancy issues need to be addressed.

…

The parents want an ordinance that is directed at chronic truants who have already been identified by Anderson’s office and local school officials. They do not want an ordinance that would allow city police and truancy officers to stop their home-school children during regular, public school hours.

Denlinger has said many parents who home-school their children do not follow the same hours of instruction as public schools. As a result, some home-school students might be running errands, such as shopping or walking pets during times when public school students are in class. The home-school parents are fearful their children would be harassed by authorities if the law reads like a daytime curfew.

The parents group is also against a requirement to register their home-schooled children with the regional superintendent’s office, Denlinger said. Likewise, the group is opposed to badges or IDs for their children that would identify them as home-schooled students.

posted by Valerie

They plan a vote on this ordinance this coming Monday, December 3rd.

From the Lincoln Courier Did someone say truancy?
Published Saturday, December 01, 2007

Illinois focus on homeschoolers-as-truants continues
It is about freedom
Daytime Curfews-HEM News and Commentary
Curfews and Homeschoolers, by Larry and Susan Kaseman
Daytime Curfew, Corn and Oil blog
Being a kid is not a crime, Ann Zeise

Posted by Susan Ryan