organicsis

California homeschoolers mandated to put children in school:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679

The only thing this doesn't answer is why this family was singled out and if other will be next, especially since they specifically accused certain umbrella schools as not being adequate.

Either way, not good.

Tara
Our Unschooling Blog:
http://heartschooling.blogspot.com
Worried about the economy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnijgIbm1qc


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

brad jones

I think it is pretty clear that they were singled out for being at the very least homophobic and probably even a little bit xenophobic which are both undesirable traits in a society. Which makes this a clear case of society forcing it's self upon the people. That is why I'm nearly completely purposely Anti-Social. And yes I think others will be targeted soon, because as we all know, the govt ain't got nothin better to do! As far as them specifically accusing the umbrella as being inadequate, well that is what will get this case turned over since it is an obvious error on their parts for not properly interpreting the law or possibly even being ignorant of the law.


organicsis <organicsis@...> wrote:
California homeschoolers mandated to put children in school:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679

The only thing this doesn't answer is why this family was singled out and if other will be next, especially since they specifically accused certain umbrella schools as not being adequate.

Either way, not good.

Tara
Our Unschooling Blog:
http://heartschooling.blogspot.com
Worried about the economy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnijgIbm1qc

__________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

diana jenner

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:11 PM, organicsis <organicsis@...> wrote:

> California homeschoolers mandated to put children in school:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAG E.view&pageId=57679<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679>
>
> The only thing this doesn't answer is why this family was singled out and
> if other will be next, especially since they specifically accused certain
> umbrella schools as not being adequate.
>
> Either way, not good.
>


***Sounds like an incredibly fear-mongering news source and story.
I'd not worry at all, unless you're outspoken about the same
platform/organization.
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Deb Lewis

***Which makes this a clear case of society
forcing it's self upon the people. ***

"People" make up the "society." If social conscience did not moved us so, slavery would have continued even longer than it did. Women and minorities would have been further delayed the right to vote.
Even more Native American children might have been taken from their parents to be "educated." Children might have been forced into factory labor for more years than they were.

I believe our social conscience will eventually make hitting children unacceptable. That's alright by me.

Humans are imperfect but their ideas continue to evolve and that "should" have an effect on other humans. Part of what we believe as unschoolers is that our kids learn from living with us. We all learn from living in the world of humans and were supposed to. We're built to learn from each other.

I think schools are mostly crummy places where learning does not thrive but if a person's chief complaint against school is that something might go on there that might make his kids think, that worries me more than the schools worry me. Boy howdy.

Some people think society's conventions should have no bearing on how they raise their kids. Some people think it's ok to keep kids in cages, or chained in their beds, or to not give them food if they "disobey" too.

And, as to the subject line; We're *all* mandated to put our kids in school in this country. Some manage to exempt them successfully. (I will refrain from elaborating about those who don't.)

Deb Lewis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nicole Willoughby

"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.
"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.>>>>>>>>>>

Ok I do think children belong with their parents and enjoy my right to let my children have their own opinion in these matters and discuss how I dont think being christian gives me the right to judge other peoples beliefs. But ouch! ...."Its my job to teach them the correct way of thinking!!??"


---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tara

Well, so new info has surfaced about this. Apparently it was the older
son who called CPS because of abuse from the father. Convenient how
that was left out of the article above.

Even though I don't agree with what many people do, I also do not agree
in forcing anyone to accept what we all see as truth. Inspire, don't
require. Mandation is not required to overcome the stufling
stereotypes. The next generation is doing that without being forced to.

But I still think this court case could mean big things for Cali HSing
law - either good or bad, I'm not sure which.

Oh here's the other info regarding this case that states the rest of
the info. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

In it, very little is mentioned about the parents reason for
homeschooling being gay lifestyles taught in school. It sounds like it
was just religious conviction (which undoubtly encompassed what the gay
rights issue, however I think the article emphasized it a bit much).

Anyway, as a Libertarian, this kind stuff worries me. It is not
constitutional to step on parental rights. And although this situation
is different because of the allegations of abuse, I certainly hope it
doesn't set a precedent for future cases. One step closer to a fascist
state.

~ Tara

diana jenner

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Tara <organicsis@...> wrote:

> Anyway, as a Libertarian, this kind stuff worries me. It is not
> constitutional to step on parental rights. And although this situation
> is different because of the allegations of abuse, I certainly hope it
> doesn't set a precedent for future cases. One step closer to a fascist
> state.
>

As a human being and as a loving mother, I hope this is one step closer to
the End of Child Abuse.
Once abuse is alleged, *especially* by a child, the issue ends as a
homeschool one and becomes a human rights issue.

--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

riasplace3

--- In [email protected], "Tara" <organicsis@...> wrote:
>
> Well, so new info has surfaced about this. Apparently it was the
older
> son who called CPS because of abuse from the father. Convenient how
> that was left out of the article above.


I've read things by those WMD or whatever they are <g> before, and they
do their best to sensationalize their writings, and they
also "conviently" leave out things.

: (
Ria

Nicole Willoughby

Well, so new info has surfaced about this. Apparently it was the
older
> son who called CPS because of abuse from the father. Convenient how
> that was left out of the article above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe I missed an e-mail. Do you have a link where ti says there was alleged child abuse?
im just curious.


---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

swissarmy_wife

This is the court case.

It only mentions it once that I noticed the beginning.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

Still, it looks terribly like the CA laws are being twisted for the
sake of not letting this family hoemschool, abuse or not.


--- In [email protected], Nicole Willoughby
<cncnawilloughby@...> wrote:
>
> Well, so new info has surfaced about this. Apparently it was the
> older
> > son who called CPS because of abuse from the father. Convenient how
> > that was left out of the article above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Maybe I missed an e-mail. Do you have a link where ti says there
was alleged child abuse?
> im just curious.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Jacquie Krauskopf

Just last week i heard or read something on California having a really horrible school system- one of the worst!
Jacquie


---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/3/2008 6:30:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
riasplace3@... writes:

I've read things by those WMD or whatever they are <g> before, and they
do their best to sensationalize their writings, and they
also "conviently" leave out things.




________________

I agree! It was their terminology regarding the "promotion" of homosexuality
and other LGBT issues. I missed it - in fear of CA becoming difficult - but
once I saw that, I shook myself and got back on track.

Karen



**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

bhmjones

--- In [email protected], "Deb Lewis" <d.lewis@...>
wrote:
>
> ***Which makes this a clear case of society
> forcing it's self upon the people. ***
>
> *"People" make up the "society." If social conscience did not
moved us so, slavery would have continued even longer than it did.
Women and minorities would have been further delayed the right to
vote.
> Even more Native American children might have been taken from their
parents to be "educated." Children might have been forced into
factory labor for more years than they were.*

Social Conscience is what caused slavery, and yes social conscience
is what led the abolition of slavery..

Social Conscience is what caused women and minorities NOT to be able
to vote in the first place, and yes social conscience is what led the
way in re-establishing the rights of women and minorities..

Social Conscience is what caused the children of Native Americans to
be taken away, and yes social conscience is what reversed that trend..

Social Conscience is fickle at best.

>
> *I believe our social conscience will eventually make hitting
children unacceptable. That's alright by me.*

But it might not be "alright" with another member of society, and in
that situation you have a conflict and when societal members have a
conflict the only way to solve the conflict is to acquiesce to
the "might makes right" mentality. That is the biggest issue I have
with society's authority, "might makes right" is the only direction
in which it can move.


>
> *Humans are imperfect but their ideas continue to evolve and
that "should" have an effect on other humans.*

"Humans are imperfect" is nothing but propaganda, it is completely
untrue, I posit that nothing can be a more perfect human than a
human.

Cristina Pertierra

I don't know if many people know this, but social conscience had nothing
to do with the abolition of slavery. Our economy did. It was
impossible to incorporate a capitalistic economy that relies on supply
and demand without abolishing slavery, because wages are also supposed
to be determined by supply and demand, and free labor would throw off
everything. It's the same reason we used to give away wheat to the
Soviet Union back in the day. They weren't part of the capitalist world
economy, thus giving them wheat wouldn't upset the value of wheat.
Almost every law, policy, treaty, war is rooted in economics. Now,
seriously, who's surprised?

Cristina


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of bhmjones
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re:Cali HSers mandated to put kids in
school



--- In unschoolingbasics@ <mailto:unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Deb Lewis" <d.lewis@...>
wrote:
>
> ***Which makes this a clear case of society
> forcing it's self upon the people. ***
>
> *"People" make up the "society." If social conscience did not
moved us so, slavery would have continued even longer than it did.
Women and minorities would have been further delayed the right to
vote.
> Even more Native American children might have been taken from their
parents to be "educated." Children might have been forced into
factory labor for more years than they were.*

Social Conscience is what caused slavery, and yes social conscience
is what led the abolition of slavery..

Social Conscience is what caused women and minorities NOT to be able
to vote in the first place, and yes social conscience is what led the
way in re-establishing the rights of women and minorities..

Social Conscience is what caused the children of Native Americans to
be taken away, and yes social conscience is what reversed that trend..

Social Conscience is fickle at best.

>
> *I believe our social conscience will eventually make hitting
children unacceptable. That's alright by me.*

But it might not be "alright" with another member of society, and in
that situation you have a conflict and when societal members have a
conflict the only way to solve the conflict is to acquiesce to
the "might makes right" mentality. That is the biggest issue I have
with society's authority, "might makes right" is the only direction
in which it can move.

>
> *Humans are imperfect but their ideas continue to evolve and
that "should" have an effect on other humans.*

"Humans are imperfect" is nothing but propaganda, it is completely
untrue, I posit that nothing can be a more perfect human than a
human.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Deb Lewis

*** and yes social conscience is what led the
way in re-establishing the rights of women and minorities.***

It wasn't a reestablishment of voting rights it was finally a granting of rights.

***Social Conscience is fickle at best***

At it's best social conscience can bring about positive change. It's not always at it's best. But we're not so fickle that we've revoked voting rights or reestablished slavery.

***.But it might not be "alright" with another member of society, and in
that situation you have a conflict ***

One way to avoid conflict is to think and act like everyone else.
To never disagree when you think someone is wrong wouldn't necessarily avoid conflict because the "wrong" their doing may be causing conflict elsewhere. To never stand up to oppressors wouldn't necessarily avoid conflict because the oppressed would still be suffering. When is it right to be different or to speak out or to call for change or take action to make change?

Conflict is not always the worst thing that could happen. In the case of spanking, conflict that would result (I'm thinking court cases, some rantings in blogs, fundamentalist breakaway groups determined to forge their own little nations where the godly act of smacking kids is protected as a parent's right, maybe some especially busy and /or violent activism - the spankers march of ten thousand moms descending on DC and spanking their kids knowing they can't all be arrested) Might not be worse than generations of kids growing up with violence inflicted upon them in their homes by their parents. It might not be worse than continuing to think of children as the property of their parents. It might not be worse than an acknowledgement of ones right to not be assaulted.

The positive gains for some years of social unrest are sometimes worth the social unrest.

***when societal members have a
conflict the only way to solve the conflict is to acquiesce to
the "might makes right" mentality. ***

I have a not so secret delight in violence.<g> I think violence is usually the most effective way to quickly solve a problem. I don't think it's a long term solution, unless you kill *all* the other guys, but it does seem to work in the moment. I suspect lots of folks feel that way and that's why they smack their kids. I reckon humans have a long history of that kind of problem solving and it won't be changed by changing our form of government.

And I don't see all societal conflict - in the way we usually see it when it occurs in America today - as necessarily worse than the thing we're conflicted over.
The Civil Rights Movement was not a more harmful thing to society than the denial of the right to vote.
I think if we made assaulting children illegal it would be worth the wrath of those who would oppose it.

I'm not defending schools and I would personally like to see an end to compulsory attendance laws. But not addressing the problem of child abuse because we're afraid of conflict over homeschooling rights would be irresponsible and just pretty darn crappy.

I think the original worry here was that California would suddenly become a place where parents couldn't homeschool their kids. The court document said that there were several exemptions from the California law of compulsory attendance and this family had not sufficiently met any of those exemptions. That there are hundreds (or thousands? I don't know) of families homeschooling in California suggests that many families successfully exempt their children and this parent could have too. It seems a case where a person put his own religious or political agenda before the welfare of his children. It's possible that no matter what kind of a nut he wanted to be he could have successfully exempted his kid and he didn't. Abuse, if he was abusive, is not a homeschooling issue.

In this case, if the parent was abusive, I don't think the power and authority of the parent over his kids was preferable to the state's power over the parent. I think the unchecked power of parents over children is more dangerous than the power of a state over an individual because the state's power can be changed by voters (or an angry mob<g>) and an abusive parent's power can rarely be questioned or changed by a little kid.

***That is the biggest issue I have
with society's authority, "might makes right" is the only direction
in which it can move.***

How you might change it and what you might change it to will take special consideration if you hope to avoid conflict.

***"Humans are imperfect" is nothing but propaganda, it is completely
untrue, I posit that nothing can be a more perfect human than a
human.***

Humans are well suited to do what humans do. That doesn't make us perfect. We're not always perfect in our logic, in our decision making. We're not always perfect parents. In lots of ways we're inferior to many of our fellow Earthlings. But we continue to learn even though there are long dark periods where not much good seems to develop and then we sometimes have a little renaissance.

Deb Lewis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

brad jones

I'd posit that "social conscience" is also partially "rooted in economics"....

Cristina Pertierra <cristina-pertierra@...> wrote: I don't know if many people know this, but social conscience had nothing
to do with the abolition of slavery. Our economy did. It was
impossible to incorporate a capitalistic economy that relies on supply
and demand without abolishing slavery, because wages are also supposed
to be determined by supply and demand, and free labor would throw off
everything. It's the same reason we used to give away wheat to the
Soviet Union back in the day. They weren't part of the capitalist world
economy, thus giving them wheat wouldn't upset the value of wheat.
Almost every law, policy, treaty, war is rooted in economics. Now,
seriously, who's surprised?

Cristina


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of bhmjones
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re:Cali HSers mandated to put kids in
school

--- In unschoolingbasics@ <mailto:unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Deb Lewis" <d.lewis@...>
wrote:
>
> ***Which makes this a clear case of society
> forcing it's self upon the people. ***
>
> *"People" make up the "society." If social conscience did not
moved us so, slavery would have continued even longer than it did.
Women and minorities would have been further delayed the right to
vote.
> Even more Native American children might have been taken from their
parents to be "educated." Children might have been forced into
factory labor for more years than they were.*

Social Conscience is what caused slavery, and yes social conscience
is what led the abolition of slavery..

Social Conscience is what caused women and minorities NOT to be able
to vote in the first place, and yes social conscience is what led the
way in re-establishing the rights of women and minorities..

Social Conscience is what caused the children of Native Americans to
be taken away, and yes social conscience is what reversed that trend..

Social Conscience is fickle at best.

>
> *I believe our social conscience will eventually make hitting
children unacceptable. That's alright by me.*

But it might not be "alright" with another member of society, and in
that situation you have a conflict and when societal members have a
conflict the only way to solve the conflict is to acquiesce to
the "might makes right" mentality. That is the biggest issue I have
with society's authority, "might makes right" is the only direction
in which it can move.

>
> *Humans are imperfect but their ideas continue to evolve and
that "should" have an effect on other humans.*

"Humans are imperfect" is nothing but propaganda, it is completely
untrue, I posit that nothing can be a more perfect human than a
human.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

bhmjones

--- In [email protected], "Deb Lewis" <d.lewis@...>
wrote:
>
> *** and yes social conscience is what led the
> way in re-establishing the rights of women and minorities.***
>
> It wasn't a reestablishment of voting rights it was finally a
granting of rights.

Yes it was a re-establishment since most historical documents point
out that most early human earthlings held the female in higher
regards than the male. Ever heard of Mother Earth and wondered where
that term originated? Just because misogyny has prevailed in the USA
since it's beginnings does not mean that misogyny has prevailed all
throughout human history.

>
> ***Social Conscience is fickle at best***
>
> At it's best social conscience can bring about positive change.
It's not always at it's best. But we're not so fickle that we've
revoked voting rights or reestablished slavery.

I guess that depends on how one defines "best" and "positive".

>
> ***.But it might not be "alright" with another member of society,
and in
> that situation you have a conflict ***
>
> One way to avoid conflict is to think and act like everyone else.

So I guess law and punishment isn't all about coercing others to
think and act like you do?


> To never disagree when you think someone is wrong wouldn't
necessarily avoid conflict because the "wrong" their doing may be
causing conflict elsewhere. To never stand up to oppressors
wouldn't necessarily avoid conflict because the oppressed would still
be suffering. When is it right to be different or to speak out or
to call for change or take action to make change?

Perhaps there would be less conflict if all the "do gooders" would
simply mind their own beezwax...

>
> Conflict is not always the worst thing that could happen. In the
case of spanking, conflict that would result (I'm thinking court
cases, some rantings in blogs, fundamentalist breakaway groups
determined to forge their own little nations where the godly act of
smacking kids is protected as a parent's right, maybe some especially
busy and /or violent activism - the spankers march of ten thousand
moms descending on DC and spanking their kids knowing they can't all
be arrested) Might not be worse than generations of kids growing up
with violence inflicted upon them in their homes by their parents.
It might not be worse than continuing to think of children as the
property of their parents. It might not be worse than an
acknowledgement of ones right to not be assaulted.
>

It would not matter how much conflict you generate, you'll never
eliminate spankings/abuse until you are able to monitor each and
every family 24/7 and then be able to intervene before it happens, so
generating conflict would not solve that issue.... And, yes children
are the property of their parents no matter how much you and I
protest that uncomfortable fact of society, just attempt to imagine a
society where children were not the property of their parent. I
really do not even use the terminology "property of their parents" I
use the terminology "children are the legalized captives of their
parents"... That terminology is simply the cold hard truth of the
matter...

> The positive gains for some years of social unrest are sometimes
worth the social unrest.

Not necessarily worth it to the ones whom you are "unresting"...
>
> ***when societal members have a
> conflict the only way to solve the conflict is to acquiesce to
> the "might makes right" mentality. ***
>
> I have a not so secret delight in violence.<g>

So do our prison's most prolific violators...

> I think violence is usually the most effective way to quickly solve
a problem. I don't think it's a long term solution, unless you kill
*all* the other guys, but it does seem to work in the moment.

Works for who? Certainly not for the one you are violating..

> I suspect lots of folks feel that way and that's why they smack
their kids. I reckon humans have a long history of that kind of
problem solving and it won't be changed by changing our form of
government.
>
> And I don't see all societal conflict - in the way we usually see
it when it occurs in America today - as necessarily worse than the
thing we're conflicted over.
> The Civil Rights Movement was not a more harmful thing to society
than the denial of the right to vote.

Tell that to all the people who died horrible deaths in the effort..

> I think if we made assaulting children illegal it would be worth
the wrath of those who would oppose it.

It is illegal, and oddly enough it still occurs.... hmmmm

>
> I'm not defending schools and I would personally like to see an end
to compulsory attendance laws. But not addressing the problem of
child abuse because we're afraid of conflict over homeschooling
rights would be irresponsible and just pretty darn crappy.

What does addressing it accomplish?


> In this case, if the parent was abusive, I don't think the power
and authority of the parent over his kids was preferable to the
state's power over the parent. I think the unchecked power of
parents over children is more dangerous than the power of a state
over an individual because the state's power can be changed by voters
(or an angry mob<g>) and an abusive parent's power can rarely be
questioned or changed by a little kid.

In fact it is more rare that voters and angry mobs change the state's
power. It is a simple fact that those with the biggest guns make the
rules and at this particular time, no one has bigger guns that the US
govt.

>
> ***That is the biggest issue I have
> with society's authority, "might makes right" is the only direction
> in which it can move.***
>
> How you might change it and what you might change it to will take
special consideration if you hope to avoid conflict.

I do not understand this question, ....is it a question?

>
> ***"Humans are imperfect" is nothing but propaganda, it is
completely
> untrue, I posit that nothing can be a more perfect human than a
> human.***
>
> Humans are well suited to do what humans do. That doesn't make us
perfect. We're not always perfect in our logic, in our decision
making. We're not always perfect parents. In lots of ways we're
inferior to many of our fellow Earthlings. But we continue to learn
even though there are long dark periods where not much good seems to
develop and then we sometimes have a little renaissance.
>
> Deb Lewis
>


again, I guess it depends on how one defines "Good" and "perfect"
and "inferior". Look em up in any two different dictionaries and
you'll get two different definitions, ask two different people and
you'll get two different definitions...

Tara

>But not addressing the problem of child abuse because we're afraid
>of conflict over homeschooling rights would be irresponsible and
>just pretty darn crappy.


From the looks of this case, that's not the issue. I don't think
you're seeing the forest thru the trees. Putting the obviously biased
opinion article aside (it was obviously speaking to a certain
audience and looking for a cetain reaction), what the court case is
stating is disturbing, because it is NOT addressing the abuse
allegations so much as the homeschool rights. Now it's posible that
the abuse allegations are being treated as a seperate case, IDK. But
what is in this case is dangerous.



>
> I think the original worry here was that California would suddenly
>become a place where parents couldn't homeschool their kids. The
>court document said that there were several exemptions from the
>California law of compulsory attendance and this family had not
>sufficiently met any of those exemptions.

But they did meet those exemptions. They were using a licensed
umbrella school, which hundreds of others do as well. One of the
other options was to establish your own private school in your home,
but from the sounds of the court case, this was an unacceptable form
as well.


>That there are hundreds (or thousands? I don't know) of families
>homeschooling in California suggests that many families successfully
>exempt their children and this parent could have too. It seems a
>case where a person put his own religious or political agenda before
>the welfare of his children. It's possible that no matter what kind
>of a nut he wanted to be he could have successfully exempted his kid
>and he didn't. Abuse, if he was abusive, is not a homeschooling
>issue.
>



Precisely! It is *not* a homeschooling issue. It's an abuse issue.
And they never stated that they were requiring school because of the
abuse or until they clear up the allegations or whatever. They were
turning an abuse case into a homeschooling issue, thereby **setting a
precedent for future cases** (just as how this case used prior court
cases as a precedent to argue their point that HSing is not lawful).

So what happens if it comes out that this son and father simply had
an argument and the son called CPS with allegations that were not
true? If the abuse is overturned, the kids don't go back to
homeschooling because the court didn't state they had to go to school
because of abuse, but ***because of qualifications to homeschool***.
The court has turned allegations of abuse into a legal right to
homeschool or not homeschool. THAT'S the issue.

The very fist line of the document states: In this dependency case
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300), we consider the question whether parents
can legally "home school" their children. [Not whether these parents
but whether parents in general.]

Subsequent lines state: "However, California courts have held that
under provisions in the Education Code, parents ****do not have a
constitutional right to homeschool their chilredn***."

This document also states that the parents were
providing "lousy," "meager," and "bad," education, and that keeping
the children at home "deprived them of situations where (1) they
could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people
who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives,
and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the
parents' "cloistered" setting."

How many judges could state the same about unschoolers, calling our
education "lousy, meager or bad"? We know it's not true but to an
outside opinion (like that of my BILs) that is what they see. So the
question is not whether their education is lousy but who's right is
it to state so? Isn't it your right to maintain your childrens
eduction and to state whether they are learning? What if the court
came into to your life and stated what you were doing didn't
constitute "Education" as they saw it and demanded your child/ren go
to public school?

The document also clearly states they believe the rights of the state
are above the rights of the parents by stating
- "primary purpose of the educational system is to train school
children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and
the nation as a means of **protecting the public welfare**"
- "that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public
welfare.'" - "the power of the state to enforce compulsory education
of children within the state at some school is beyond question",
- "the juvenile court has authority to
limit a parent's control over a dependent child, including a parent's
right to make educational decisions for a child"

The court here is stating that homeschooling in general is bad for
public welfare. They are stating they have the right to mandate what
is taught and not taught. So what if they decide that my views on
public school, religion, the war etc are "manifestly inimical to the
public welfare"? This gives the state the right ot mandate what our
views (i.e. thoughts, action, statements) are!

If this were an abuse case and only about abuse, it would not have
stated all it did. It would have centered around the abuse. But they
are taking an abuse case and setting a precedent for public
education. The right to homeschool and alegations of abuse are two
seperate things. And when you treat them seperately, you can see
where the homeschool issue will take Californians. It is stepping
them in the direction of the state having power over the parents in
regards to education or anything else they see as being bad for
society.

Where do you draw the line?

~ Tara
(I hope I sense. I'm a bit spacey today. LOL)

diana jenner

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Tara <organicsis@...> wrote:

> This document also states that the parents were
> providing "lousy," "meager," and "bad," education, and that keeping
> the children at home "deprived them of situations where (1) they
> could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people
> who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives,
> and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the
> parents' "cloistered" setting."
>
> How many judges could state the same about unschoolers,
>











***I know lots of unschooling families IRL and I can't think of a single
family where these three criteria are not met.


> The document also clearly states they believe the rights of the state
> are above the rights of the parents by stating
> - "primary purpose of the educational system is to train school
> children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and
> the nation as a means of **protecting the public welfare**"
> - "that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public
> welfare.'" - "the power of the state to enforce compulsory education
> of children within the state at some school is beyond question",
> - "the juvenile court has authority to
> limit a parent's control over a dependent child, including a parent's
> right to make educational decisions for a child"
>












***And it's up the the folks in CA, who have an issue with this, to address
it thorough our legal system -- change can happen! If you don't like CA
attitude of "child ownership" & you really don't want the fight, TX is
available :D If you love CA and you want to unschool your kids, you learn to
do the dance required by the system. It's obviously not as difficult as this
*one* court case is representing, or no one would be doing it!


> The court here is stating that homeschooling in general is bad for
> public welfare. They are stating they have the right to mandate what
> is taught and not taught. So what if they decide that my views on
> public school, religion, the war etc are "manifestly inimical to the
> public welfare"? This gives the state the right ot mandate what our
> views (i.e. thoughts, action, statements) are!
>







**The voters of CA have decided these are the people they want in charge of
their state and their state law interpretations. Again, if it doesn't work
for Californians, they can show up and vote for other people who see things
from a different perspective -- still, TX is available :D (I say this
because in America, if we don't like the way things are run in any state, we
can change it, adapt to it, or live somewhere more suitable -- no one
(outside of the legal system) is forced to live in a state that doesn't fit
their fancy). We just moved from Souf'akota ::scratch, scratch, spit::: :D
to Corvallis, OR -- a much better fit for our family and our principles;
nothing against South Dakota, it serves purpose for those who want what SD
has to offer. I adapted for many many years, I worked at change for many
many years and now, I'm ready to BE where we all feel more comfortable.

>
> If this were an abuse case and only about abuse, it would not have
> stated all it did. It would have centered around the abuse. But they
> are taking an abuse case and setting a precedent for public
> education. The right to homeschool and alegations of abuse are two
> seperate things. And when you treat them seperately, you can see
> where the homeschool issue will take Californians. It is stepping
> them in the direction of the state having power over the parents in
> regards to education or anything else they see as being bad for
> society.
>












**Fear mongering sells. It sells lots of stuff, especially school to most
folks. Which is why I'm mostly a newsphobe -- nope, make that a badnewsphobe
;) Would it be as sensational without the HS aspect??
I still haven't seen this story reported by a single reputable news
source...
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Karen Swanay

Just because you are a liberal doesn't mean WND isn't reputable. They
are conservative in a sea of liberal news outlets, but one must NEVER
forget that ALL media is compromised by the need and desire to make
money. Just look at dog bite cases, if a dog bites someone it is
ALWAYS listed as a pit bull even if it's clearly not. Then several
days later after much stink by the public they print a retraction in
the back of the paper in small print. Sensationalism sells. No
matter what the market. The HS aspect makes the family look like
religious whacknuts so they went with that. If there was something
sexual to this story ALL markets would be carrying it. "If it bleeds
it leads" is not a bad joke anymore it's a way of life with our media.
Our media isn't controlled by the government it's controlled by the
board of directors and special interest groups. ALL media is
compromised and they all report with their own spin. The direction it
spins may be different but it's all moving like tornadoes, destroying
things in its path.

AND the peoples of CA line up to give away their personal rights.
They tend to love huge government and a lot of government intrusion
into their lives or the lives of their neighbors. This wouldn't be
the first time they gave something away, or sat idly by and watched it
be taken away. The problem is HSing isn't mainstream. So those that
don't do it don't give a fig about those that do. So they will say
"PFFFT, kids are better off in school, let them make it illegal." And
that's one more right handed off. And it only becomes a crisis when
the right being stripped is one that you care about (the rhetorical
you) because no one turns out to support those fighting to keep the
other rights intact. It's a culture of "me and mine" and that's a
huge problem. People don't seem to understand that today it's breed
bans and bans against gay marriage but tomorrow it's HSing and the
right to homebirths and the next week it will be something else. More
and more, layer upon layer until the government is fat and has it's
hand in your pocket and is sitting in the living room with you
watching everything you do.

Karen

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM, diana jenner <hahamommy@...> wrote:
>> **Fear mongering sells. It sells lots of stuff, especially school to most
> folks. Which is why I'm mostly a newsphobe -- nope, make that a badnewsphobe
> ;) Would it be as sensational without the HS aspect??
> I still haven't seen this story reported by a single reputable news
> source...
>
> --
> ~diana :)
> xoxoxoxo

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: diana jenner <hahamommy@...>

keeping the children at home "deprived them of situations where
(1) they could interact with people outside the family,
(2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in
the children's lives, and
(3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the
parents' "cloistered" setting."

How many judges could state the same about unschoolers,


***I know lots of unschooling families IRL and I can't think of a single
family where these three criteria are not met.

-=-=-=-=-

But I know several HOMEschooling families in this situation.

1) The children *never* go anywhere without at least one parent (and
usually the rest of the kids too).
2) The people who *could* provide help are in the same boat and
paddling in the same direction. They *could* help, but they won't.
3) And their world is only as broad as their church allows it to be.

These people scare *me* too! And I am surrounded by them in SC, the
home of Bob Jones University.

I have a {{{neighborhood}}} homeschooling support group---I mean,
*right* here! I was thrilled when I found that out when we first
started homeschooling!

But they're not the crowd I felt good about hanging out with. They
wanted their children's lives to be as small as possible. Our
"worldliness" was not a good match with them. They were afraid of me
too.

They had some darling and delightful children, who really didn't know
any different. And because their lives are so cloistered, unless they
leave the church---AND their families, they won't ever know anything
different.

I can see how their thinking would concern Californians. It doesn't
much concern South Carolinians, who have voted in legislators with
similar values. *I* am more likely to get attacked for unschooling here
in South Carolina than they are for religiously homeschooling. I would
think my rights as an unschooling mom would be a bit stronger though in
progressive California.

It's hard to tell what the real story is regarding this article.
Homeschooling. Abuse. Whether they followed homeschool laws. Cloistered
lives. NEA. Older siblings. Christian. Lots of factors we really don't
know.

Homeschooling is a relative term and looks different in each household.
It's legal in all states.

Abuse is a relative term---legally. Spanking is legal in all states
http://kidjacked.com/legal/spanking_law.asp Even California.

We can choose where to live. We can choose whether to follow the laws
of where we live. We can choose to fight the laws. And we can choose to
live with the consequences of our actions.





~Kelly

Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org

Joyce Fetteroll

On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Karen Swanay wrote:
> Just because you are a liberal doesn't mean WND isn't reputable.


And people should be aware that World Net Daily is a far right
conservative news source. Founded by Joseph Farah whose world view is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah

"The choice is simple: The world of standards and morality, of
marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God? Or the
world of anything-goes, aberrant sexual behavior, doing-your-own-
thing lifestyles, and moral codes that change with the speed of the
latest public-opinion poll?"

You can read about some of the controversial articles in WND here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Of course, don't take that as a stopping point. Do your own research
and find out what they're about.

This story is very similar to the homeschooling "alerts" HSLDA sends
out that are full of seemingly alarming reports of threats to
homeschooling but end up going no where. They're just attempts by
lawyers to find some route into court. They get thrown out by judges.

It isn't that homeschooling in particular gets targeted. I suspect no
matter what your concern, if you watched all the cases filed you'd
feel like your rights were on the verge of collapsing.

Joyce

Karen Swanay

I believe my point was that ALL media is compromised and disreputable
by virtue of the fact that money is the only thing they care about.
Saying you haven't seen this reported by any reputable news source is
saying that WND is disreputable and there might be some news source
that isn't slanted one way or the other and chasing the almighty
dollar. I suspect that if we dug into the founders of all the major
media there would be similar nasty stuff in their backgrounds. In
other words, I'm not defending WND as much as saying all media outlets
are smiliarly inclined they just lean in the other direction.

Karen

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:

> "The choice is simple: The world of standards and morality, of
> marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God? Or the
> world of anything-goes, aberrant sexual behavior, doing-your-own-
> thing lifestyles, and moral codes that change with the speed of the
> latest public-opinion poll?"
> Joyce

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 5, 2008, at 4:33 AM, Karen Swanay wrote:

> Just because you are a liberal doesn't mean WND isn't reputable. They
> are conservative in a sea of liberal news outlets,

Yeah - we all know how radio is dominated by liberals - like Rush
Limbaugh <G>.

> but one must NEVER
> forget that ALL media is compromised by the need and desire to make
> money. Just look at dog bite cases, if a dog bites someone it is
> ALWAYS listed as a pit bull even if it's clearly not.

My daughter was attacked by an American Pit Bull. It was a registered
animal - the police showed me its papers. I wonder what you'd be
saying if your little girl had been attacked by a pit bull.

> Then several
> days later after much stink by the public they print a retraction in
> the back of the paper in small print. Sensationalism sells. No
> matter what the market. The HS aspect makes the family look like
> religious whacknuts so they went with that.

This is a serious story. Having read the actual case, the news story
is surprisingly correct.

> If there was something
> sexual to this story ALL markets would be carrying it. "If it bleeds
> it leads" is not a bad joke anymore it's a way of life with our media.
> Our media isn't controlled by the government it's controlled by the
> board of directors and special interest groups. ALL media is
> compromised and they all report with their own spin. The direction it
> spins may be different but it's all moving like tornadoes, destroying
> things in its path.
>
> AND the peoples of CA line up to give away their personal rights.

Right. All of us peoples <G>.

>
> They tend to love huge government and a lot of government intrusion
> into their lives or the lives of their neighbors. This wouldn't be
> the first time they gave something away, or sat idly by and watched it
> be taken away.

Nobody is giving anything away regarding this case, or sitting idly by
and watching anything be taken away. What the HECK are you talking
about - you know absolutely nothing about what is going on here in
California regarding this extremely serious case, but you're spouting
off at the mouth in your ignorance, anyway.

> The problem is HSing isn't mainstream. So those that
> don't do it don't give a fig about those that do. So they will say
> "PFFFT, kids are better off in school, let them make it illegal." And
> that's one more right handed off. And it only becomes a crisis when
> the right being stripped is one that you care about (the rhetorical
> you) because no one turns out to support those fighting to keep the
> other rights intact. It's a culture of "me and mine" and that's a
> huge problem. People don't seem to understand that today it's breed
> bans and bans against gay marriage but tomorrow it's HSing and the
> right to homebirths and the next week it will be something else. More
> and more, layer upon layer until the government is fat and has it's
> hand in your pocket and is sitting in the living room with you
> watching everything you do.

Sheesh - you're kind of a downer, aren't you! Hyperbole isn't
conducive to an intelligent discussion.

-pam





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alison Broadbent

Here's a link to a blog regarding this issue written by the editor of
California Homexhoolers magazine. It's calm and logical. She
logically extracts the issues w/o al the fear and panic that
surrounds this serious issue. You may have to cut and paste. http://
justenough.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/california-update-or-its-not-
illegal-to-homeschool/

Alison