Karen Swanay

from the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Homeschoolers' setback sends shock waves through state
by Bob Egelko, Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, March 7, 2008
(03-07) 04:00 PST LOS ANGELES --

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling
by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the
state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible
truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent
Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who
is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit
of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip
and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight
children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland
Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles
County), which considers the Long children part of its independent
study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law
requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private
schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools,
like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many
homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state
as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least
1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by
homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes.
Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day
school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who
holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a
constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter
Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal
duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these
laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A 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," the judge
wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling
The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers
Association board of directors. "We always think students should be
taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency
is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies
and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack
O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when
it comes to homeschooling."

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed
earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally
advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court,
said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be
used to go after homeschoolers. "With this case law, anyone in
California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is
subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require
community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children
under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons,
from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home.
It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said,
noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a
teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

"I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she
said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments."

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."

Began as child welfare case
The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the
validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of
mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly
educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be
enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a
right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the
parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school,
but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children
because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation
of the children's right to a legal education."

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children,
including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning
through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs
have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter
schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed
teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through
independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide
Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense
Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the
state.

"California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the
vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach
their own children at home," he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center
of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case,
said the ruling did not change the law.

"They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been
unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that
children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private
school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send
them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually
go to the school and be taught by teachers."

Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of
the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they
would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing
safety."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Robin Bentley

Here's some further information from two of the homeschool
organizations in CA. Basically, they're saying calm down and don't
panic. The HSC site suggest what action individuals should and
shouldn't take.

http://www.hsc.org/Appellatedecision

http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/updates.htm

Robin B.

On Mar 7, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Karen Swanay wrote:

> from the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle:
>
> Homeschoolers' setback sends shock waves through state
> by Bob Egelko, Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers



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

Mark V Fullerton

What to do about the possibility that some parents might use
homeschooling to isolate and abuse their children in privacy is a
difficult question that it seems to me the homeschooling community has
not been willing to address. Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider. But
the statement made by Leslie Heimov here, if taken seriously, would
imply that we cannot afford to leave children alone with their parents
(!):


<"But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center
of Los Angeles,(...) said her organization's chief concern was not the
quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily
where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their
ongoing safety.">

Mark V Fullerton

First, to quote Debbie Schwarzer, HSC Legal Team Co-chair:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How do we get rid of this case?

There are a number of paths. One is seeking actual review by the
Supreme Court. HSC and at least several of the other major groups'
legal teams aren't in favor of that. Even if you could get the court
to accept your petition (they only take 3-5% of cases), the chances
that it will be decided the way you want aren't real good. It's a very
dangerous road to take, because if the Supreme Court were to affirm
the appellate court ruling on either of the main points
(constitutional or statutory), there aren't many options left. The
constitutional argument, of course, could be appealed to the US
Supreme Court, but the statutory case about the proper interpretation
of the California Education Code could not. California Supreme Court
is the last stop on that road. If that happens, then you have two bad
choices that I'll discuss below.

There is another much easier choice, and it's the one we want, as well
as the one being trumpeted in the HSLDA petition. You ask the
California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion, or, in other words,
have them say that while this might have been the right result in this
particular case involving this particular set of facts, the court
finds that the reach of the opinion is overbroad and should not become
law for the entire state. That is the choice we all (meaning HSC and,
I believe, the other groups) want.

You get this by filing a letter with the Supreme Court in compliance
with the applicable rules of court. While anyone can file one by
stating their interest, we DO NOT think it is an appropriate use of
grassroots activism. We DO NOT want every HSC member or HSLDA member
or grandmother or irate citizen dashing off their letters to the
Supreme Court. There are sober, measured, legal arguments to make
about why depublication is appropriate, and those arguments are made
after researching the applicable standards, etc. The Supreme Court
will not be swayed positively by public outcry. In fact, it could
backfire, and backfire badly.

If the Supreme Court affirms on the statutory points, then the two bad
choices are to either seek legislation or to do nothing and hope that
a further case is brought that can involve a better set of facts and
better explanation of the issues (and reaching a better result). Both
are very dangerous. Legislation isn't the answer because of the
extraordinary strength of the teachers' union. It is unlikely we will
see any legislation ultimately pass that gives us the freedom we have
today. And the second choice is dangerous. I know lots of families
that would make terrific test case defendants -- they're
conscientious, they actually get their kids educated, they follow the
laws. But we don't get to pick who the family is. As a friend of mine
said, we couldn't have gotten a worse set of facts for this case if we
had a contest.

We are trying to get one or more of the fanciest law firms in the
state to help us on taking the fangs out of this case. We know what
we're doing. Please let us do our jobs.

I would be personally, professionally, and, as a representative of
HSC, globally grateful if everyone on this list would calm down and
ask others to calm down. Specifically, I would ask people:

a. Not to write to the Supreme Court or any court.

b. Not to talk to their legislators or make any public statements
about a need for legislation.

c. Tell their neighbors, friends, lists, groups both of the above and
to educate them about the choices available and about how panic isn't
necessary, marches on Sacramento aren't necessary, etc.

I wish this were the type of situation where we could put the fury,
passion and energy of the members of this list to good use. Trust me,
if we end up having to go the legislative route, we will have that
situation at some points. But this isn't that type of situation, and
too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of helps.

Thanks for listening.

Debbie Schwarzer
HSC Legal Team Co-chair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

----Now, it is true that the courts are not likely to be swayed by an
angry public. On the other hand Governor Arnold Swarzenegger himself
has been willing to describe the ruling as outrageous, and that he is
prepared to address the matter in the legislature to make sure
homeschooling stays legal. In some ways I think this is actually
ideal, since the courts after all can only rule on the basis of
existing law, even if the only law CA has on homeschooling was written
during the McCarthy era. Debbie Schwarzer, in seeking to have the
ruling depublished, is choosing what is easiest to accomplish, but
would not necessarily be the most effective, for it would not
establish a right to homeschool. My point is that an involved public
may not influence the courts much - but it certainly CAN influence the
legislators.

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Mark V Fullerton wrote:

> ----Now, it is true that the courts are not likely to be swayed by an
> angry public. On the other hand Governor Arnold Swarzenegger himself
> has been willing to describe the ruling as outrageous, and that he is
> prepared to address the matter in the legislature to make sure
> homeschooling stays legal.

Do you know ANYTHING about the California state legislature, though?

We are extremely likely to end up with a homeschooling law that
requires annual standardized testing and oversight by local school
district officials. That is what the state DOE is going to push for
and it is a popular position here.
We're WAY better off if we can go back to the status quo before this
court decision. No homeschool law, we are private schoolers and
private school is unregulated.

> In some ways I think this is actually
> ideal, since the courts after all can only rule on the basis of
> existing law, even if the only law CA has on homeschooling was written
> during the McCarthy era.

We have NO homeschooling law and we like it that way.

> Debbie Schwarzer, in seeking to have the
> ruling depublished, is choosing what is easiest to accomplish, but
> would not necessarily be the most effective, for it would not
> establish a right to homeschool.

If you look at the history of how the private school law developed in
California it is clear that the legislature intended home education to
be subsumed under private school law - the most private of private
schools.

> My point is that an involved public
> may not influence the courts much - but it certainly CAN influence the
> legislators.

We don't WANT our legislators inflamed - they aren't going to come up
with laws that we want.

If we end up stuck fighting a legislative battle, we're ready and
willing to fight it. But going for depublishing the recent decision
isn't because it is the easy way out, it is the superior way in that
it leaves us with more freedom.

-pam



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

Ren Allen

~~But this isn't that type of situation, and
too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of helps.~~

That's exactly why I get so frustrated with HSLDA and their tactics.
They've done so much harm with their "sky-is-falling" crap.

I had a chance to hang out with Mary Griffith this weekend at the
InHome conference. She'd been part of HSC for many years and is very
aware of the background on some of the reasons this case exploded the
way it did. Very enlightening. A lot of it has to do with some guy who
wanted to be the next Michael Farris and promote his own organization
to "help" homeschool families.

I think people who start big organizations in order to represent such
diverse groups like home/unschoolers end up causing more harm than
good much of the time. The essence of the unschooling movement is
about personal responsibility and doing it for yourself. Anytime
someone comes in wanting to "certify leaders" or have people pay a
yearly membership for some organization, I think you should question
their motives deeply. Their are some good advocacy groups out there,
like NHEN. But when the organization is largely about promoting a
certain individual as a "leader", that's when my eyebrows go up.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark V Fullerton <markvictorfullerton@...>

But the statement made by Leslie Heimov here, if taken seriously, would
imply that we cannot afford to leave children alone with their parents
(!):
<"But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center
of Los Angeles,(...) said her organization's chief concern was not the
quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily
where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their
ongoing safety.">

-=-=-=-=-=-

So her stance is that strangers have a greater "duty" to ensure
children's safety than parents.

This statement ALONE should send up zillions of red flags.

-=-=-=-=-=-

What to do about the possibility that some parents might use
homeschooling to isolate and abuse their children in privacy is a
difficult question that it seems to me the homeschooling community has
not been willing to address.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The abusers tend to have a huge legal team on their side, defending
their rights to treat and educate their children as they see fit.
*THEY* see my choice to *unschool* and give my children choices as
abusive and neglectful.

The general public views unschooling as neglectful because we're not
requiring that the kids do seatwork and chores.

"Abuse" is illegal in each state, but corporal punishment is NOT. Where
do you draw the line? The courts give it a LOT of leeway.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

And this is something that you feel should be required? Assigned?
Regulated?

I think that's a HORRIBLE idea.

Plus---do you think people wouldn't find ways around this? Or ways to
hide abuse? Parents with things to hide would figure out how to hide
evidence or miss appointments. Doctors don't even catch all the abuse
that passes before them already!



~Kelly

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

Ren Allen

~~Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.~~


The fact that people think like this scares the crap out of me! Yeah,
have more governmental interference in our freedom of choice, THAT
always fixes everything right? Hell NO!

Some of us have a big enough uphill battle to fight in giving our
children freedom of choice over their bodies by not vaccinating. Can
you imagine what would happen if the above were made legal. How easy
it would be for government to make homeschooling illegal?

Freedom of choice means that some people will choose badly. It doesn't
mean the entire population should have government regulations shoved
down their throat in order to reign in the abusers. It wouldn't work
anyway.

Also, some of us choose not to use modern medicine as our first line
of defense. Should my choice for an alternative practitioner be
ignored? Heck, we haven't even done yearly teeth cleanings! The
implications of the above statement are fairly creepy to me.
Especially if you consider how much our country has happily given up
freedoms under the Patriot Act. Yuck, ptooey, gag...that's what I say.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

swissarmy_wife

> ~~Personally I would think that requiring
> *all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
> physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.~~


Agh... the effects of living in an institutionalized society. People
who think we all need to be held accountable to someone else. BLECK!!!

This is quite possibly the worst suggestion I've ever heard.
REQUIRING children to have doctors visits?!?!? To detect abuse? As
if the majority of the population is abusive? Oh, that is so terribly
wrong. Adding to the vaccinations choices, just think of the false
implications of neglect and abuse that would come up. Could you
imagine having your child's every cut, bruise, and lack of academics
scrutinized?!?!!?

It's bad enough in my state, that enrolling to homeschool requires
that we prove our children NOT disabled, instead of proving they are.

Scary thing is, too many people think like this.

Ren Allen

~~
We have NO homeschooling law and we like it that way.~~



This is exactly how HSLDA has screwed up so many state laws! They love
to make claims about how they helped make homeschooling legal in every
state. Whoop-te-doo! They encouraged laws where there were NONE. Being
non-regulated is the best option for homeschoolers. Read the law in
Alaska. It states all the compulsory schooling laws and at the very
end it basically says "unless the child is homeschooled" thereby
making homeschoolers UNregulated. There is NO law for them. Good.

We are such a law-driven country. People forget that no law means no
oversight and the freedom to pursue homeschooling in their own way.


Ren
learninginfreedom.com

Pamela Sorooshian

Beats the heck out of requiring standardized testing, though, which is
what the current "accountability" craze is most likely to demand. An
annual medical exam - that could mean all kinds of things, but having
had kids go in for "camp exams" many times, those are typically VERY
cursory.

I'm into thinking about legislation options as I believe there is a
serious threat that the California state legislature will decide it is
time to pass some kind of homeschooling law. We need to have our
thinking clear about what is more or less acceptable. Even though what
we prefer is the status quo, it might not be possible to prevent the
legislature from moving ahead on this, if they get going.

-pam

On Mar 11, 2008, at 5:42 AM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:

> Personally I would think that requiring
> *all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
> physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> And this is something that you feel should be required? Assigned?
> Regulated?
>
> I think that's a HORRIBLE idea.
>
> Plus---do you think people wouldn't find ways around this? Or ways to
> hide abuse? Parents with things to hide would figure out how to hide
> evidence or miss appointments. Doctors don't even catch all the abuse
> that passes before them already!



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

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>

Beats the heck out of requiring standardized testing, though, which is
what the current "accountability" craze is most likely to demand.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Can the majority of CA schooled children pass a standardized test? With
all the immigrants, I'm guessing not. So they probably won't go there.

There will probably be some kind of accountability, but the rest of us
manage OK---even Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers! <g>

It just won't be as easy. But homeschooling *won't* become illegal.

-=-=-=-=-=-

An annual medical exam - that could mean all kinds of things, but
having
had kids go in for "camp exams" many times, those are typically VERY
cursory.

-=-=-=-=-=

So cursory, in fact, that they would determine nothing.

Unless the doc was opposed to homeschooling and started looking more
carefully---then he could find all sorts of abnormalities. Then he
makes a report to DSS because they're HOMESCHOOLERS and then they
can---no, MUST--open an investigation. DSS can't even handle the load
it has now!

I find that idea frightening.

And I'm the daughter of a doctor. <g>

Schools have children 180 days/year---and STILL, with all their
"observing," children are abused and neglected on a regular basis.
Right under their noses. (And not always at home!)

-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm into thinking about legislation options as I believe there is a
serious threat that the California state legislature will decide it is
time to pass some kind of homeschooling law. We need to have our
thinking clear about what is more or less acceptable. Even though what
we prefer is the status quo, it might not be possible to prevent the
legislature from moving ahead on this, if they get going.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm sure CA is in for homeschooling legislation. But y'all've skated by
for years in bliss. <G>

But I think the laws you get will be quite reasonable. Certainly more
reasonable than some states! I wouldn't be so worried. There may be
more hoops to jump through---but "Welcome!" from the rest of the
homeschooling world. <G>



~Kelly

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

brad jones

Kelly, Mark is attempting to suggest the noble thing to do....



kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark V Fullerton <markvictorfullerton@...>

But the statement made by Leslie Heimov here, if taken seriously, would
imply that we cannot afford to leave children alone with their parents
(!):
<"But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center
of Los Angeles,(...) said her organization's chief concern was not the
quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily
where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their
ongoing safety.">

-=-=-=-=-=-

So her stance is that strangers have a greater "duty" to ensure
children's safety than parents.

This statement ALONE should send up zillions of red flags.

-=-=-=-=-=-

What to do about the possibility that some parents might use
homeschooling to isolate and abuse their children in privacy is a
difficult question that it seems to me the homeschooling community has
not been willing to address.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The abusers tend to have a huge legal team on their side, defending
their rights to treat and educate their children as they see fit.
*THEY* see my choice to *unschool* and give my children choices as
abusive and neglectful.

The general public views unschooling as neglectful because we're not
requiring that the kids do seatwork and chores.

"Abuse" is illegal in each state, but corporal punishment is NOT. Where
do you draw the line? The courts give it a LOT of leeway.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

And this is something that you feel should be required? Assigned?
Regulated?

I think that's a HORRIBLE idea.

Plus---do you think people wouldn't find ways around this? Or ways to
hide abuse? Parents with things to hide would figure out how to hide
evidence or miss appointments. Doctors don't even catch all the abuse
that passes before them already!

~Kelly

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





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

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

brad jones

Ren, you gotta understand Mark and others like him think it is ok to champion romanticized nobility..... you can't really hold it against him, we are institutionalized this from birth....



Ren Allen <starsuncloud@...> wrote:
~~Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider.~~

The fact that people think like this scares the crap out of me! Yeah,
have more governmental interference in our freedom of choice, THAT
always fixes everything right? Hell NO!

Some of us have a big enough uphill battle to fight in giving our
children freedom of choice over their bodies by not vaccinating. Can
you imagine what would happen if the above were made legal. How easy
it would be for government to make homeschooling illegal?

Freedom of choice means that some people will choose badly. It doesn't
mean the entire population should have government regulations shoved
down their throat in order to reign in the abusers. It wouldn't work
anyway.

Also, some of us choose not to use modern medicine as our first line
of defense. Should my choice for an alternative practitioner be
ignored? Heck, we haven't even done yearly teeth cleanings! The
implications of the above statement are fairly creepy to me.
Especially if you consider how much our country has happily given up
freedoms under the Patriot Act. Yuck, ptooey, gag...that's what I say.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com






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

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

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@...>

Kelly, Mark is attempting to suggest the noble thing to do....


-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Why would that be considered "noble"?

How would such a ruling work? Only homeschooled students must see a
doctor? Why not schooled kids? Why not ALL kids? Until what age?

Who pays for the office visit? The state? What about poor kids? Do you
get the same exam at a free clinic, or is it "safer" to go to a
private practice doc or the hospital or a Doc-in-the-Box? OH! Maybe
they could put a doc in the *school* and I'd have to go *there*!

Once a year? Twice a year? Monthly?

If I regularly beat my child and avoided bruises (there are books and
websites that tell you how to do that!), would I *really* get caught?
What if I just avoided beating him in April 'cause his yearly check-up
was in May?

I could threaten to withhold the X-box if he even attempted to say
something to the doc about the daily abuses hurled at him.

What if my child is afraid of doctors?

What if they required that I immunize? What if they threatened to call
that neglect/abuse?

Oh! My dad's a doctor---could I ask him to do the exam? What about all
the spankings he gave me---with a belt. Naw---he wouldn't consider that
abuse...or would he?



Bringing the medical profession into an educational issue is the
problem. It's a problem in the FIRST place with the CA family. Was it a
homeschool problem or an abuse problem? The only way they are related
is that a homeschool family *can* hide abuse.

And families of schooled kids can't. <snort>

I don't think anyone needs to be "noble." I think people need to be
realistic. Address the *individual* problem and don't make problems
where there aren't any.

California will figure it out. They have really, really smart people
working on it. It most likely won't be the status quo, but they will
deal with it.

~Kelly

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

Cameron Parham

Mark V Fullerton says "~~Personally I would think that requiring
*all* children to have yearly doctor exams, partly to detect signs of
physical or sexual abuse, would at least be something to consider."

I would wonder whether Mark is familiar with an exam designed to rule out sexual abuse, and how a child experiences that exam? Of course, it is traumatic. I wonder if he realizes that the vast majority of physical and sexual abuse is undetectable on physical exam, even by experienced experts (which most doctors aren't). I wonder if he knows that most abused children are actually in school and have interfaced with doctors for years before the abuse is detected? I would wonder if he has ever been involved with referring cases to social services? Most teachers, nurses and doctors with a few years' experience have stories about the horrors of the system, frequently resulting in kids being left in unsafe environments, and sometimes removed traumatically from safe environments. And the staff of social services may or may not have good training, or resources, or compassion. Ditto anyone else assigned to these proposed compulsory exams, doctors and
nurses included. There is no evidence that homeschooling is associated with increased rates of child maltreatment. So we would subject *all* kids to an invasive, assaultive yearly exam in order to involve them and their fates in an acutely flawed system? Why not just snatch all the kids from their parents at birth, then. This idea is the proverbial 'going after a housefly with a bomb' but can gain momentum if not carefully examined. Whew! Cameron

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

Cameron Parham

The only way they are related
is that a homeschool family *can* hide abuse.
And families of schooled kids can't. <snort>


Thank goodness for the snort above. To re-iterate, the vast majority of truly abused kids attend schools and doctors appointments for years before anything is detected. Often, it's never detected, by the report of abused adults. So schools and doctors offer NO protection. Cameron

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

Karen Swanay

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Cameron Parham <acsp2205@...> wrote:
> I would wonder whether Mark is familiar with an exam designed to rule out
> sexual abuse, and how a child experiences that exam? Of course, it is
> traumatic. Cameron
************************************************************************************

Not to mention that 1.) absue does occur before school age so when do
you start these? and 2.) this requires that you tell your kid what the
exam is for and why regardless of their emotional readiness. My boys
are 11 and 9 and I don't know that they know some parents have sex
with their own kids. I certainly haven't told them that. They know
there is abuse but I'm pretty sure they think it's limited to beatings
etc...and that sex doesn't enter into it. I CERTAINLY wouldn't have
wanted to have to sit with a 7 yr old and explain it to them. And as
a parent I should decide when my children are emotionally ready for
really horrific stuff not the state.

We are Jewish and my boys only know the most general facts about the
Holocaust. I can't even begin to imagine the pain learning about Dr
Mengele would bring. John may be able to process it, but Liam would
be devastated. It's for ME to decide when to offer traumatic
information if at all, and how, with my children in the lead not
because the state thinks I need to.
Karen
--
"In the facades we put on for others we demonstrate our potential;
through our children we reveal our reality."

- Lawrence Kelemen, To Kindle A Soul

http://temptabo.blogspot.com/

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 11, 2008, at 9:20 AM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:

> Can the majority of CA schooled children pass a standardized test?
> With
> all the immigrants, I'm guessing not. So they probably won't go there.

They WILL go there. That's almost a foregone conclusion. Every kid in
public school has to take the standardized tests every year. They are
used to determine which schools are failing and the schools can be
taken over by the state if they keep on failing. School funding
partially depends on improvements in test scores, too.

But, anyway, test test test test - that's really a huge focus and it
is what the anti-homeschooling public school types repeatedly call for
- they want homeschoolers to have to take the same tests as "everybody
else." (Private schoolers are not required to test, but the public
school apologists usually don't seem to remember that.)

Oh yes - that is the first thing they'll introduce - annual
standardized testing - for sure.

The question then will be - what will they want DONE with the test
scores - are they going to just say, "You have to test?" No, they're
going to want "accountability." The BIG word these days. So they'll
come up with some way that local school districts review our kids'
test scores and probably some stupid arrangement where kids with low
scores will get "help" from the school district (whether we want it or
not).

And, what will they test? Probably exactly what the public school kids
are being tested on - the state mandated standardized tests, not tests
of our own choice. These include subject-specific tests AND probably
the CAHSEE - the High School Exit Exam which every student must pass
in order to get a high school diploma.

Here in California, our state legislature is very much influenced (to
say the least) by the teachers' unions. Very very much.

Anything we can do to avoid the legislature even thinking about new
laws is worth trying and I hope we'll get a good outcome in court! I'm
just saying that the legislature is almost certainly going to require
standardized testing IF the legislature does end up involved. We need
to be prepared to respond to that possibility.

-pam




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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 11, 2008, at 9:20 AM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:

> But I think the laws you get will be quite reasonable. Certainly more
> reasonable than some states! I wouldn't be so worried.

I'm not sure why you think we'll get reasonable laws - we're the state
that LOVES to regulate everything. We're not a particularly "freedom-
loving" state - not at all.

> There may be
> more hoops to jump through---but "Welcome!" from the rest of the
> homeschooling world. <G>

Yeah - thanks! <G>

It might not come to that. But, I think we have to think about all the
possibilities and examine them - if it does come down to a legislative
battle, not all homeschoolers are going to be on the same page. There
will be plenty of homeschoolers who think an annual standardized test
is just fine and dandy. I'd rather send in some proof that my kid had
some sort of medical contact sometime during the year - pick your own
doctor, include the option for various alternative types of medical
practitioners - we could get that written into the law.

(I'm not really for this - heck, it isn't like we even go to the
doctor much - Rosie is 17 and told me she's only ever MET our doctor
once that she can remember.) But, I think it is worthwhile to consider
all the trade-offs. Realistically, a doctor visit would be a WHOLE lot
less intrusive in our lives than mandatory standardized testing would
be.

-pam

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

Pamela Sorooshian

I need to clarify that I'm not seriously hoping we have a mandatory
doctor visit in place of standardized testing. It isn't going to
happen, anyway. They couldn't justify mandatory medical care, but they
will feel that mandatory standardized testing is just fine and dandy.

But, my point is that mandatory standardized testing is a HUGE
intrusion - enough that, for MY family, at least, a doctor visit would
be just way way way less of a problem.

-pam

On Mar 11, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:

> Realistically, a doctor visit would be a WHOLE lot
> less intrusive in our lives than mandatory standardized testing would
> be.



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

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]

I'm not sure why you think we'll get reasonable laws - we're the state
that LOVES to regulate everything. We're not a particularly "freedom-
loving" state - not at all.

-=-=-=-=-

No, but you're not in the Bible Belt either!

Here, I think we're allowed to homeschool *because* of the religious
right. That won't be any help to you! <g>

I think your laws will be reasonable because of you and those you have
working with you to help make the laws. Your legislature won't be going
in blind. They will be *very* informed. Unfortunately, the teachers'
union will also have input, but they can't make it illegal.

-==-=-=-=-=-=-

It might not come to that. But, I think we have to think about all the
possibilities and examine them - if it does come down to a legislative
battle, not all homeschoolers are going to be on the same page. There
will be plenty of homeschoolers who think an annual standardized test
is just fine and dandy.

-=-=-=-=-=-

There are plenty who would give *everything* away just to be able to
homeschool---including mandatory doctor's exams and testing out the
wazoo. Those folks are dangerous because they *are* willing to give
away their rights to many things in order to keep one right.

-=-=-=-=-=-

I'd rather send in some proof that my kid had
some sort of medical contact sometime during the year - pick your own
doctor, include the option for various alternative types of medical
practitioners - we could get that written into the law.

-=-=-=-=-=-

I think that's dangerous. That's asking for trouble.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(I'm not really for this - heck, it isn't like we even go to the
doctor much - Rosie is 17 and told me she's only ever MET our doctor
once that she can remember.) But, I think it is worthwhile to consider
all the trade-offs. Realistically, a doctor visit would be a WHOLE lot
less intrusive in our lives than mandatory standardized testing would
be.

-=-=-=-=-=-


You know I feel the same way about testing as you do. But there are
several states (NC and GA for example) which require testing for
homeschoolers, and it's as painless as it can be.

A whole lot less painful than doctors and DSS.

~Kelly

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

brad jones

but we gotta save-da-kidz....


Karen Swanay <luvbullbreeds@...> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Cameron Parham <acsp2205@...> wrote:
> I would wonder whether Mark is familiar with an exam designed to rule out
> sexual abuse, and how a child experiences that exam? Of course, it is
> traumatic. Cameron
************************************************************************************

Not to mention that 1.) absue does occur before school age so when do
you start these? and 2.) this requires that you tell your kid what the
exam is for and why regardless of their emotional readiness. My boys
are 11 and 9 and I don't know that they know some parents have sex
with their own kids. I certainly haven't told them that. They know
there is abuse but I'm pretty sure they think it's limited to beatings
etc...and that sex doesn't enter into it. I CERTAINLY wouldn't have
wanted to have to sit with a 7 yr old and explain it to them. And as
a parent I should decide when my children are emotionally ready for
really horrific stuff not the state.

We are Jewish and my boys only know the most general facts about the
Holocaust. I can't even begin to imagine the pain learning about Dr
Mengele would bring. John may be able to process it, but Liam would
be devastated. It's for ME to decide when to offer traumatic
information if at all, and how, with my children in the lead not
because the state thinks I need to.
Karen
--
"In the facades we put on for others we demonstrate our potential;
through our children we reveal our reality."

- Lawrence Kelemen, To Kindle A Soul

http://temptabo.blogspot.com/





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

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