LONG: Research on Dr. Cynthia Hamilton
Annette Yunker
I read with great interest the comments in response to the news of the "homeless homeschooled" young man who achieved perfect scores on his SAT exams. At the time, I was eager to play the Devil's advocate. I decided not to discuss the issue entirely on hypotheticals, and so I collected additional info.
For a copy and postage fee of $5.50, I obtained from the California Medical Board a copy of the action against Dr. Hamilton.
Before I get into any details at all, I want to address the money/computer issue. Many complained of her three computers and her supposed inability to get a job. The action against her began in 1996 and was finalized with the revocation of her license in Oct 2000 (the license expired in May 1999, the decision came down in Oct 2000, but the acts that were disciplined were committed prior to the license expiring). In the meantime, given the seriousness of the allegations against her, it is understandable that she could not easily find work. Concerning the expense of the computers, just this week, I was given two separate sources for computers given free for educational purposes, and yes, homeschoolers are eligible. I also have three thrift stores a couple miles from my home that sell many computers and printers and faxes and monitors, etc. I happen to live in a suburban area. The immediate area is a mix of low income, middle class and the very wealthy, so perhaps this opportunity for used computers also exists in other suburban areas. Also concerning money, someone mentioned the cost of housing in Calif - but did you notice, the doc has three children and they live in a ONE bedroom APT? We all have different priorities, and it seems education is a priority in this family. The articles I read stated that the kids did most of their schooling on-line. Perhaps they also economize this way by not buying curriculum, but by utilizing the plethora of free educational items available through that venue. (Told you I wanted to play the Devil's advocate). I don't know some of these details any more than others do, but I do know some comments are unfair when the details simply are not known. One thing I do know is the church that is referenced in the article. The article mentions that they have been members of that particular church for only the past few years. It's quite possible that this family has a support system in the church members. Particularly if the M.D. has had a change of heart/life since her professional debacle befell her. It wouldn't surprise me if members of the church donated their own used computers. It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the kids were talented enough to build their own machines. At any rate, here's the professional info:
It appears that in 1989 a child was admitted to the hospital where Dr. Hamilton worked, and the patient (pt) was assigned to Dr. Hamilton (CJH). The pt was a 10 month old infant with intussusception (telescoping of one bowel segment to another), which is serious and potentially fatal. The infant was admitted and treated, but had symptoms later which prompted the doctor to order a barium enema. The pt's conditioned worsened and she was sent to intensive care, where the neurological symptoms were evaluated by other dr.'s who ordered a CAT scan. As it turned out, the infant had a brain tumor and she passed away.
That much is clear - the rest is part fact, part speculation on my part, part poor judgement on the CJH's part, and part covering one's behind on the hospital's part, part taking warranted action on the hospital's part. In that the child passed away, it appears that the ensuing investigation and review was inevitable, and that the investigation uncovered practices which the hospital chose to pursue as allegation of professional misconduct (this probably helped them look better in the wake of the death: oh, yeah, this doctor is to blame, she's a bad cat). In that an infant died on the hospital's watch, the parents were undoubtedly overwhelmed with grief and wanted to know what happened, and who was responsible. Part of the criticism with the care given by CJH focused on the lack of physical reassessment on her part (she took the call/page from the nurses and ordered the enema, but did not reassess in person). The hospital appears to have dug further into CJH's practices to discover that on more than several occassions, the dr.'s notes were dictated up to a month after the care was rendered, and so the "witch-hunt" began in full force. The hosptial faults her for the late medical dicatations, but CJH claims this was a common practice at the hospital by many doctors. There was speculation that (in an effort to cover up for care that was never given, some late dictation was done intentionally when no follow-up care had actually been given. The Board admitted there is no way they could ever know for sure, and those charges were dismissed. The doctor was also discovered to have self-medicated "dangerous" drugs - no, not pain killers, but acne drugs and antibiotics. The Board dismissed these charges because there is actually no law or regulation against self-prescribing. There is a Business and Professions Code section 2234 and 4402 which define a dangerous drug but does not proscribe any conduct. The section that pertains to self-administration of drugs is a different section, and that section is not alleged in the charges, and it does not per se prohibit self-administration of drugs. Naturally, there was no action taken on the drug charges.
I spent many years in the U.S. Marine Corps, and I have seen my share of witch hunts. I worked in the legal arena, although I am not a lawyer. I have seen commander's eager to find a scape goat when they know heads will begin to roll, and I have seen how quickly one can locate an easy taget who is made to carry the load of of punishment for many. Usually, such an individuals behavior would escape detection or not be considered punishible, were in not for some other situation looming large. I do not make any excuses for the doctor, and I do not assume to know exactly what did happen or what should have happened. But I do recognize that many of the elements of this investigation and the ensuing charges bear a close resemblence to other scenarios I have seen played out elsewhere.
What we know for sure is that a child died on this doctor's watch, and finding work again has been difficult. The doctor and hospital acknowledge personality conflicts between the staff and doctor, and the doctor claims this is part of the basis for the total action against her. The doctor was suspended a week after the child passed away. All of the allegations against her consituted the basis for the suspension, although many of the allegations were dismissed, for the reasons cited above. The doctor was eligible for a probation, vice a license revocation (but keep in mind, by this time the license had expired expired). But the reasons cited for not considering probation are: the doctor did not, in their opinion, accept responsibility for her actions (by claiming some things were common practice by others), she did not appear before the board on the day of the hearing, and the doctor's "apparent unwilliingness to return to employment at VCH under rather lenient terms and conditions." I don't know what the lenient terms and conditions were, just that the doctor described personality problems and the investigation/charges were coming out of this same hospital, and she did not want to go back. In addition to the revocation the doctor is liable for the cost of the investigation and enforcement ($19,542.22). She cannot have her license re-issued, renewed, or reinstated unless this cost is paid. Of course she can apply in other states, as I understand it, and quite often other states do not check for revocation information. If a Dr. wishes to, they can lie on an application and hope the employer does not verify.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
For a copy and postage fee of $5.50, I obtained from the California Medical Board a copy of the action against Dr. Hamilton.
Before I get into any details at all, I want to address the money/computer issue. Many complained of her three computers and her supposed inability to get a job. The action against her began in 1996 and was finalized with the revocation of her license in Oct 2000 (the license expired in May 1999, the decision came down in Oct 2000, but the acts that were disciplined were committed prior to the license expiring). In the meantime, given the seriousness of the allegations against her, it is understandable that she could not easily find work. Concerning the expense of the computers, just this week, I was given two separate sources for computers given free for educational purposes, and yes, homeschoolers are eligible. I also have three thrift stores a couple miles from my home that sell many computers and printers and faxes and monitors, etc. I happen to live in a suburban area. The immediate area is a mix of low income, middle class and the very wealthy, so perhaps this opportunity for used computers also exists in other suburban areas. Also concerning money, someone mentioned the cost of housing in Calif - but did you notice, the doc has three children and they live in a ONE bedroom APT? We all have different priorities, and it seems education is a priority in this family. The articles I read stated that the kids did most of their schooling on-line. Perhaps they also economize this way by not buying curriculum, but by utilizing the plethora of free educational items available through that venue. (Told you I wanted to play the Devil's advocate). I don't know some of these details any more than others do, but I do know some comments are unfair when the details simply are not known. One thing I do know is the church that is referenced in the article. The article mentions that they have been members of that particular church for only the past few years. It's quite possible that this family has a support system in the church members. Particularly if the M.D. has had a change of heart/life since her professional debacle befell her. It wouldn't surprise me if members of the church donated their own used computers. It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the kids were talented enough to build their own machines. At any rate, here's the professional info:
It appears that in 1989 a child was admitted to the hospital where Dr. Hamilton worked, and the patient (pt) was assigned to Dr. Hamilton (CJH). The pt was a 10 month old infant with intussusception (telescoping of one bowel segment to another), which is serious and potentially fatal. The infant was admitted and treated, but had symptoms later which prompted the doctor to order a barium enema. The pt's conditioned worsened and she was sent to intensive care, where the neurological symptoms were evaluated by other dr.'s who ordered a CAT scan. As it turned out, the infant had a brain tumor and she passed away.
That much is clear - the rest is part fact, part speculation on my part, part poor judgement on the CJH's part, and part covering one's behind on the hospital's part, part taking warranted action on the hospital's part. In that the child passed away, it appears that the ensuing investigation and review was inevitable, and that the investigation uncovered practices which the hospital chose to pursue as allegation of professional misconduct (this probably helped them look better in the wake of the death: oh, yeah, this doctor is to blame, she's a bad cat). In that an infant died on the hospital's watch, the parents were undoubtedly overwhelmed with grief and wanted to know what happened, and who was responsible. Part of the criticism with the care given by CJH focused on the lack of physical reassessment on her part (she took the call/page from the nurses and ordered the enema, but did not reassess in person). The hospital appears to have dug further into CJH's practices to discover that on more than several occassions, the dr.'s notes were dictated up to a month after the care was rendered, and so the "witch-hunt" began in full force. The hosptial faults her for the late medical dicatations, but CJH claims this was a common practice at the hospital by many doctors. There was speculation that (in an effort to cover up for care that was never given, some late dictation was done intentionally when no follow-up care had actually been given. The Board admitted there is no way they could ever know for sure, and those charges were dismissed. The doctor was also discovered to have self-medicated "dangerous" drugs - no, not pain killers, but acne drugs and antibiotics. The Board dismissed these charges because there is actually no law or regulation against self-prescribing. There is a Business and Professions Code section 2234 and 4402 which define a dangerous drug but does not proscribe any conduct. The section that pertains to self-administration of drugs is a different section, and that section is not alleged in the charges, and it does not per se prohibit self-administration of drugs. Naturally, there was no action taken on the drug charges.
I spent many years in the U.S. Marine Corps, and I have seen my share of witch hunts. I worked in the legal arena, although I am not a lawyer. I have seen commander's eager to find a scape goat when they know heads will begin to roll, and I have seen how quickly one can locate an easy taget who is made to carry the load of of punishment for many. Usually, such an individuals behavior would escape detection or not be considered punishible, were in not for some other situation looming large. I do not make any excuses for the doctor, and I do not assume to know exactly what did happen or what should have happened. But I do recognize that many of the elements of this investigation and the ensuing charges bear a close resemblence to other scenarios I have seen played out elsewhere.
What we know for sure is that a child died on this doctor's watch, and finding work again has been difficult. The doctor and hospital acknowledge personality conflicts between the staff and doctor, and the doctor claims this is part of the basis for the total action against her. The doctor was suspended a week after the child passed away. All of the allegations against her consituted the basis for the suspension, although many of the allegations were dismissed, for the reasons cited above. The doctor was eligible for a probation, vice a license revocation (but keep in mind, by this time the license had expired expired). But the reasons cited for not considering probation are: the doctor did not, in their opinion, accept responsibility for her actions (by claiming some things were common practice by others), she did not appear before the board on the day of the hearing, and the doctor's "apparent unwilliingness to return to employment at VCH under rather lenient terms and conditions." I don't know what the lenient terms and conditions were, just that the doctor described personality problems and the investigation/charges were coming out of this same hospital, and she did not want to go back. In addition to the revocation the doctor is liable for the cost of the investigation and enforcement ($19,542.22). She cannot have her license re-issued, renewed, or reinstated unless this cost is paid. Of course she can apply in other states, as I understand it, and quite often other states do not check for revocation information. If a Dr. wishes to, they can lie on an application and hope the employer does not verify.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
I also did some investigating. There are several areas in this post that
aren't quite correct.
---- Original Message -----
"Annette Yunker" wrote:
exams. >snip<
***Actually, he wasn't really homeschooled. He was enrolled in a California
public school system charter school. Horizon, a for profit organization,
runs several of the charter schools for various public schools and this is
the program they enrolled in.
***The computers were provided by Horizon.
came down in Oct 2000, but the acts that were disciplined were committed
prior to the license expiring). In the meantime, given the seriousness of
the allegations against her, it is understandable that she could not easily
find work.
***She could have found work, just not work as an MD. The insurance
industry is always looking for doctors and other medical personnel to review
claims. Large malpractice firms are always looking for folks to review
cases. She could have done insurance exams (you don't have to be licensed
to do those). There are dozens of ways to use that medical degree and by
the end of first year med school, all the med students know what they are.
***Sonora is not a suburban area. The total population of Tuolomme County is
only about 53,000 with Sonora being the county seat and being the "big city"
with a population of 4,500.
APT?
***Just curious, could you tell me where you read about a one-bedroom
apartment? All of the interviews I found and on their web page they say that
they have a "real" house now.
schooling on-line.
***You might want to go to their web page. The mother doesn't mention doing
schooling online. She mentions lots of textbooks and CDS. She does
however, make the following statement which was interesting and may have
some bearing on her failure to find employment:
"While we need to raise our daughters with a good education, it should
always be with the vision of using it to be a good wife and mother, NOT to
work toward a career out of the home."
http://www.rmwest.com/trevor/materials.htm
venue. (Told you I wanted to play the Devil's advocate). I don't know some
of these details any more than others do, but I do know some comments are
unfair when the details simply are not known.
***Well, I did some research. They didn't buy curriculum because the
California public school system provided it for them, not a church.. The
reason I know is I went straight to the horse's mouth, I asked Cindi
Hamilton.
go but the implication that there was a "witch hunt" are out in left field.
Also, the way this is lumped together gives the impression that there was
one big conspiracy when the bottom line was that the good doc screwed up and
a child died. I think the sympathy is misplaced.
All hospitals in the U.S. that receive any federal funds have to be
certified by the JCHA (feds) and must meet certain criteria. That criteria
includes having a QA committee. Sometimes this comes under Risk Management,
sometimes it is called Quality Management, sometimes Quality Assurance.
Each month the hospital's QA committee meets. This committee generally
consists of the Chief of Staff, Risk Management, Unit Nurse Managers and
doctors from each discipline.
ALL deaths are reviewed (it doesn't take an unhappy parent to trigger this),
all med errors are reviewed, all complaints against staff (doctors, nurses,
pharmacy, etc.) are reviewed. A person such as the head of Medical Records
or the Nursing Services Coordinator (moi <g>) pulls all the records, does a
summary sheet--MR (medical records) No. 123456789, admitted 01/01/??,
diagnosis: [example] cardio-vascular insufficiency (with appropriate code
number), and then the reason for the record being part of the
review--deceased, med error, patient/family complaint--and places the charts
on a chart and then hauls the whole works to the committee meeting.
Right off the top there would have been a problem with this record if there
was no dictation and it would have been noted on the summary. If the
dictation was done but had not been transcribed, there would have been a
flag saying: "Dictated, not transcribed." These are placed in all charts as
soon as the transcription pool receives the dictation tapes. In hospitals
that have the equivalent of a voice mail system for dictation, their system
would be somewhat different.
Now, on to the basis for the disciplinary action. Not only is it
unprofessional behavior to not physically see and exam a patient, it can be
criminally prosecuted. Again, this was no "witch hunt," this was standard
operating procedure for all hospitals.
Red flags would have gone off all over the place when it was noted that the
doctor ordered tests on a patient who was not examined. Particularly when
you only have an approximate 48-72 hours window between life and death with
a patient who already (per your post) was diagnosed as having
intussusception. If this is the case, it is generally considered that the
barium enema would not have been the appropriate test to order anyway as the
diagnosis had already been made. The appropriate tests would have been a CAT
scan or ultrasound to see if there was now an obstruction or tumor.
Intussusception can be (please note, I said "can be" not "is") caused by
various types of tumors or lymphosarcomas. The first line is to use the
least invasive test possible on a small child. You did note that another
physician did order a CT and that it did show a brain tumor. You don't
mention whether or not this was a mets to the brain or a primary site.
Obviously the second doctor was a better diagnostician.
Further, there is no way in h*ll a doctor should treat any patient without a
physical exam. This is unethical AND unprofessional behavior in any hospital
regardless of claims of "not getting along with the staff." What in the
world does that whining have to do with the primary charge. Looks like a
smoke screen to try and spread the blame around.
When a death is found to result from misconduct, the hospital is required
(this is not an option) to turn over their findings to the California
Medical Board who then reviews the hospital's actions. In this case, with
her lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility, she is lucky that
they didn't turn it over to the county DA's office for criminal prosecution.
Which, btw, is a quite frequently the first option listed in most hospital P
& Ps.
Generally the sanctions placed on doctors include being proctored, time
limits on dictation and some sort of leave without pay.
hospital's part, part taking warranted action on the hospital's part.
***The above addresses some of this but the I don't think chalking up a
child's death to "poor judgement" is something that the good doc gets to
use. It is called criminal negligence.
As to the hospital doing a CYA, nope, if they were, they would have covered
up for the doc as she wasn't simply someone who had privileges at the
hospital, she was a hospital employee. Thus, by acknowledging that she was
negligent, they acknowledged some responsibility for her acts.
physical reassessment on her part (she took the call/page from the nurses
and ordered the enema, but did not reassess in person). The hospital appears
to have dug further into CJH's practices to discover that on more than
several occasions, the dr.'s notes were dictated up to a month after the
care was rendered, and so the "witch-hunt" began in full force.
***Again, this was not a "witch hunt," it was federally and state mandated
SOP. When negligence is found, the records on all patients seen by the
physician being investigated are pulled for review.
***Sounds like a typical teens on a sitcom excuse, "But Mom, everyone else
is doing it" to which mom replies, "Well, if everyone else is jumping off
the Golden Gate Bridge, are you going to do it too?"
***I checked my old copy of the California Business and Professions Code and
couldn't find these, so decided to go online and see if they had been added
since I last renewed my copies. The medical stuff falls under Division 2.
Healing Arts. In Chapter 5. Medicine, Article 13. Medical Adjudication,
there is no Article 2234. There is an Article 2232 and 2235 but no 2234.
Chapter 9. Pharmacy, Article 23. Revenue and Renewal, Article 4402 has to do
with pharmacists licenses.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=bpc&codebody=&hits=
20
Are you sure you have those numbers right?
***What section would that be?
this time the license had expired expired).
***If she were put on probation, her license would have been suspended or
been put in a provisionary status, not revoked. She refused to return to
work and take her punishment. She could have applied for a transfer to
another facility within the group the hospital she was employed by was a
member. This is done all the time and that is accepted by the Board. She
choose not to exercise that option.
And, presumption of guilt is what happens when one refuses or neglects to
show up at a hearing. Again, this is her fault, not the hospitals or the
Boards. The fact that she allowed her license to lapse was just one more
negative mark against her.
Lynda
aren't quite correct.
---- Original Message -----
"Annette Yunker" wrote:
> I read with great interest the comments in response to the news ofthe"homeless homeschooled" young man who achieved perfect scores on his SAT
exams. >snip<
***Actually, he wasn't really homeschooled. He was enrolled in a California
public school system charter school. Horizon, a for profit organization,
runs several of the charter schools for various public schools and this is
the program they enrolled in.
>snip<.issue. Many complained of her three computers
> Before I get into any details at all, I want to address the money/computer
***The computers were provided by Horizon.
> and her supposed inability to get a job.***She stated in one interview that she had been unable to get a job.
>The action against her began in 1996 and was finalized with the revocationof her license in Oct 2000 (the license expired in May 1999, the decision
came down in Oct 2000, but the acts that were disciplined were committed
prior to the license expiring). In the meantime, given the seriousness of
the allegations against her, it is understandable that she could not easily
find work.
***She could have found work, just not work as an MD. The insurance
industry is always looking for doctors and other medical personnel to review
claims. Large malpractice firms are always looking for folks to review
cases. She could have done insurance exams (you don't have to be licensed
to do those). There are dozens of ways to use that medical degree and by
the end of first year med school, all the med students know what they are.
> Concerning the expense of the computers, >snip< so perhaps thisopportunity for used computers also exists in other suburban areas.
***Sonora is not a suburban area. The total population of Tuolomme County is
only about 53,000 with Sonora being the county seat and being the "big city"
with a population of 4,500.
>Also concerning money, someone mentioned the cost of housing in Calif - butdid you notice, the doc has three children and they live in a ONE bedroom
APT?
***Just curious, could you tell me where you read about a one-bedroom
apartment? All of the interviews I found and on their web page they say that
they have a "real" house now.
> We all have different priorities, and it seems education is a priority inthis family. The articles I read stated that the kids did most of their
schooling on-line.
***You might want to go to their web page. The mother doesn't mention doing
schooling online. She mentions lots of textbooks and CDS. She does
however, make the following statement which was interesting and may have
some bearing on her failure to find employment:
"While we need to raise our daughters with a good education, it should
always be with the vision of using it to be a good wife and mother, NOT to
work toward a career out of the home."
http://www.rmwest.com/trevor/materials.htm
>Perhaps they also economize this way by not buying curriculum, but byutilizing the plethora of free educational items available through that
venue. (Told you I wanted to play the Devil's advocate). I don't know some
of these details any more than others do, but I do know some comments are
unfair when the details simply are not known.
***Well, I did some research. They didn't buy curriculum because the
California public school system provided it for them, not a church.. The
reason I know is I went straight to the horse's mouth, I asked Cindi
Hamilton.
>snip<***The comments about the loss of a medical license are fine as far as facts
go but the implication that there was a "witch hunt" are out in left field.
Also, the way this is lumped together gives the impression that there was
one big conspiracy when the bottom line was that the good doc screwed up and
a child died. I think the sympathy is misplaced.
All hospitals in the U.S. that receive any federal funds have to be
certified by the JCHA (feds) and must meet certain criteria. That criteria
includes having a QA committee. Sometimes this comes under Risk Management,
sometimes it is called Quality Management, sometimes Quality Assurance.
Each month the hospital's QA committee meets. This committee generally
consists of the Chief of Staff, Risk Management, Unit Nurse Managers and
doctors from each discipline.
ALL deaths are reviewed (it doesn't take an unhappy parent to trigger this),
all med errors are reviewed, all complaints against staff (doctors, nurses,
pharmacy, etc.) are reviewed. A person such as the head of Medical Records
or the Nursing Services Coordinator (moi <g>) pulls all the records, does a
summary sheet--MR (medical records) No. 123456789, admitted 01/01/??,
diagnosis: [example] cardio-vascular insufficiency (with appropriate code
number), and then the reason for the record being part of the
review--deceased, med error, patient/family complaint--and places the charts
on a chart and then hauls the whole works to the committee meeting.
Right off the top there would have been a problem with this record if there
was no dictation and it would have been noted on the summary. If the
dictation was done but had not been transcribed, there would have been a
flag saying: "Dictated, not transcribed." These are placed in all charts as
soon as the transcription pool receives the dictation tapes. In hospitals
that have the equivalent of a voice mail system for dictation, their system
would be somewhat different.
Now, on to the basis for the disciplinary action. Not only is it
unprofessional behavior to not physically see and exam a patient, it can be
criminally prosecuted. Again, this was no "witch hunt," this was standard
operating procedure for all hospitals.
Red flags would have gone off all over the place when it was noted that the
doctor ordered tests on a patient who was not examined. Particularly when
you only have an approximate 48-72 hours window between life and death with
a patient who already (per your post) was diagnosed as having
intussusception. If this is the case, it is generally considered that the
barium enema would not have been the appropriate test to order anyway as the
diagnosis had already been made. The appropriate tests would have been a CAT
scan or ultrasound to see if there was now an obstruction or tumor.
Intussusception can be (please note, I said "can be" not "is") caused by
various types of tumors or lymphosarcomas. The first line is to use the
least invasive test possible on a small child. You did note that another
physician did order a CT and that it did show a brain tumor. You don't
mention whether or not this was a mets to the brain or a primary site.
Obviously the second doctor was a better diagnostician.
Further, there is no way in h*ll a doctor should treat any patient without a
physical exam. This is unethical AND unprofessional behavior in any hospital
regardless of claims of "not getting along with the staff." What in the
world does that whining have to do with the primary charge. Looks like a
smoke screen to try and spread the blame around.
When a death is found to result from misconduct, the hospital is required
(this is not an option) to turn over their findings to the California
Medical Board who then reviews the hospital's actions. In this case, with
her lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility, she is lucky that
they didn't turn it over to the county DA's office for criminal prosecution.
Which, btw, is a quite frequently the first option listed in most hospital P
& Ps.
Generally the sanctions placed on doctors include being proctored, time
limits on dictation and some sort of leave without pay.
>snip<part poor judgement on the CJH's part, and part covering one's behind on the
>
> That much is clear - the rest is part fact, part speculation on my part,
hospital's part, part taking warranted action on the hospital's part.
***The above addresses some of this but the I don't think chalking up a
child's death to "poor judgement" is something that the good doc gets to
use. It is called criminal negligence.
As to the hospital doing a CYA, nope, if they were, they would have covered
up for the doc as she wasn't simply someone who had privileges at the
hospital, she was a hospital employee. Thus, by acknowledging that she was
negligent, they acknowledged some responsibility for her acts.
>snip<Part of the criticism with the care given by CJH focused on the lack of
physical reassessment on her part (she took the call/page from the nurses
and ordered the enema, but did not reassess in person). The hospital appears
to have dug further into CJH's practices to discover that on more than
several occasions, the dr.'s notes were dictated up to a month after the
care was rendered, and so the "witch-hunt" began in full force.
***Again, this was not a "witch hunt," it was federally and state mandated
SOP. When negligence is found, the records on all patients seen by the
physician being investigated are pulled for review.
> The hosptial faults her for the late medical dicatations, but CJH claimsthis was a common practice at the hospital by many doctors.
***Sounds like a typical teens on a sitcom excuse, "But Mom, everyone else
is doing it" to which mom replies, "Well, if everyone else is jumping off
the Golden Gate Bridge, are you going to do it too?"
>There is a Business and Professions Code section 2234 and 4402 which definea dangerous drug but does not proscribe any conduct.
***I checked my old copy of the California Business and Professions Code and
couldn't find these, so decided to go online and see if they had been added
since I last renewed my copies. The medical stuff falls under Division 2.
Healing Arts. In Chapter 5. Medicine, Article 13. Medical Adjudication,
there is no Article 2234. There is an Article 2232 and 2235 but no 2234.
Chapter 9. Pharmacy, Article 23. Revenue and Renewal, Article 4402 has to do
with pharmacists licenses.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=bpc&codebody=&hits=
20
Are you sure you have those numbers right?
>The section that pertains to self-administration of drugs is a differentsection >snip<
***What section would that be?
>keep in mind, by
>The doctor was eligible for a probation, vice a license revocation (but
this time the license had expired expired).
***If she were put on probation, her license would have been suspended or
been put in a provisionary status, not revoked. She refused to return to
work and take her punishment. She could have applied for a transfer to
another facility within the group the hospital she was employed by was a
member. This is done all the time and that is accepted by the Board. She
choose not to exercise that option.
And, presumption of guilt is what happens when one refuses or neglects to
show up at a hearing. Again, this is her fault, not the hospitals or the
Boards. The fact that she allowed her license to lapse was just one more
negative mark against her.
Lynda
Lynda
Actually, Horizon does NOT run those programs as a service for people who
want to homeschool. You can put any face on it you want to justify how one
supposedly homeschools or unschools. They are in the business of making
money off the public school system. Randy could care less whether anyone
succeeds or fails as long as the money keeps rolling in. Charters were NOT
invented in CA so people could homeschool. They were originally invented so
that alternative schools could be set up where the parents would control
what was happening. They then progressed to including various forms of
homeschooling. However, they are part of the public school system, and they
have basic requirements that must be met including enrollment, signed
agreements, vaccinations and approved curriculum. If they aren't meeting
them, then the legislature will finish what they started two years ago and
shut them all down. Horizon is one of the ones under investigation for
misappropriate of funds.
To be part of Horizon, you must sign an agreement, turn in roll sheets and
learning records every 20 school days. You must meet with an ES every 20
school days or more frequently if needed/desired. "All students in charter
schools are required to achieve at least as much learning as would be
required in the regular schools in California." "The learning records must
be sent to the Lincoln office electronically within seven (7) rotations of
the earth after the learning period of no more than 20 school days."
"Included on the learning record format is a listing of the student
standards in each growth area." "The ES evaluates the learning by
indicating the student standards in which progress has occurred during the
learning period." "Learning records must be written to reflect the
requirements of independent study law." "Learning records will include
descriptions of the major objectives and activities of the course of study
covered by the agreement that were used within each assignment period."
"This Charter School must administer any state mandated test whenever one is
provided. The state mandated test for the school year 2000/01 is the STAR9."
"Each parent facilitator is required to sign a contract between the parent
and the charter school" "Students will demonstrate competency in seven
growth area goals, determined by achievement of the student standards."
"Charter school students will perform and achieve as well as or better than
students in traditional California public schools" "Students will achieve
competency in basic academic skills"
Sorry, this isn't homeschooling, this is public school independent study
with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at home. It sure isn't
unschooling.
And some folks in CA do homeschool and have for years. They may not be
technically legal but they are homeschooling. And, filing an R4 does not
put you at the government trough, nor does it have government regulated
requirements and government regulated standards that are enforced by monthly
meetings with public school officials with "mandatory: portfolio, monthly
review of work, Star test."
Lynda
want to homeschool. You can put any face on it you want to justify how one
supposedly homeschools or unschools. They are in the business of making
money off the public school system. Randy could care less whether anyone
succeeds or fails as long as the money keeps rolling in. Charters were NOT
invented in CA so people could homeschool. They were originally invented so
that alternative schools could be set up where the parents would control
what was happening. They then progressed to including various forms of
homeschooling. However, they are part of the public school system, and they
have basic requirements that must be met including enrollment, signed
agreements, vaccinations and approved curriculum. If they aren't meeting
them, then the legislature will finish what they started two years ago and
shut them all down. Horizon is one of the ones under investigation for
misappropriate of funds.
To be part of Horizon, you must sign an agreement, turn in roll sheets and
learning records every 20 school days. You must meet with an ES every 20
school days or more frequently if needed/desired. "All students in charter
schools are required to achieve at least as much learning as would be
required in the regular schools in California." "The learning records must
be sent to the Lincoln office electronically within seven (7) rotations of
the earth after the learning period of no more than 20 school days."
"Included on the learning record format is a listing of the student
standards in each growth area." "The ES evaluates the learning by
indicating the student standards in which progress has occurred during the
learning period." "Learning records must be written to reflect the
requirements of independent study law." "Learning records will include
descriptions of the major objectives and activities of the course of study
covered by the agreement that were used within each assignment period."
"This Charter School must administer any state mandated test whenever one is
provided. The state mandated test for the school year 2000/01 is the STAR9."
"Each parent facilitator is required to sign a contract between the parent
and the charter school" "Students will demonstrate competency in seven
growth area goals, determined by achievement of the student standards."
"Charter school students will perform and achieve as well as or better than
students in traditional California public schools" "Students will achieve
competency in basic academic skills"
Sorry, this isn't homeschooling, this is public school independent study
with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at home. It sure isn't
unschooling.
And some folks in CA do homeschool and have for years. They may not be
technically legal but they are homeschooling. And, filing an R4 does not
put you at the government trough, nor does it have government regulated
requirements and government regulated standards that are enforced by monthly
meetings with public school officials with "mandatory: portfolio, monthly
review of work, Star test."
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cindy Ferguson" <crma@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] LONG: Research on Dr. Cynthia Hamilton>
>
> Lynda wrote:
> >
> > ***Actually, he wasn't really homeschooled. He was enrolled in a
California
> > public school system charter school. Horizon, a for profit
organization,
> > runs several of the charter schools for various public schools and this
is
> > the program they enrolled in.
> >
>
> Horizon runs these programs as services for people who want to educate
> their children at home.
>
> If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is homeschooled. A
> child is enrolled in a public school, a private school or is truant. I
> really don't think we want to get into a debate about who are real
> homeschoolers in CA.
>
> --
>
> Cindy Ferguson
> crma@...
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
I think Cindy isn't here to answer and probably wouldn't care to do
so. Besides, I think she put it very succintly in her previous
post....
Cindy wrote <<If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is
homeschooled. A child is enrolled in a public school, a private
school or is truant. I really don't think we want to get into a
debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
The definition of what is 'homeschooling' is as varied as the number
and types of homeschooling families. It's too bad that an attitude
has developed among homeschoolers who think 'that person isn't really
homeschooling' because they aren't doing it exactly as THEY would
define it. I mean, I've met people who wouldn't consider anyone truly
homeschoolers unless they're doing it for religious reasons.
Obviously, there are lots of us who would argue against that
definition.
The point is that if you live in a state that makes it hard to
homeschool, you do what you can and have to in order to live your
life and homeschool the way you can. If I had to be 'registered'
under a private or charter school to keep my child home and teach her
myself, I would. That doesn't mean I'm not just playing their game
and then doing what I want.
Or again as Cindy put it <<I really don't think we want to get into a
debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
Now dropping the subject,
Jane
so. Besides, I think she put it very succintly in her previous
post....
Cindy wrote <<If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is
homeschooled. A child is enrolled in a public school, a private
school or is truant. I really don't think we want to get into a
debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
The definition of what is 'homeschooling' is as varied as the number
and types of homeschooling families. It's too bad that an attitude
has developed among homeschoolers who think 'that person isn't really
homeschooling' because they aren't doing it exactly as THEY would
define it. I mean, I've met people who wouldn't consider anyone truly
homeschoolers unless they're doing it for religious reasons.
Obviously, there are lots of us who would argue against that
definition.
The point is that if you live in a state that makes it hard to
homeschool, you do what you can and have to in order to live your
life and homeschool the way you can. If I had to be 'registered'
under a private or charter school to keep my child home and teach her
myself, I would. That doesn't mean I'm not just playing their game
and then doing what I want.
Or again as Cindy put it <<I really don't think we want to get into a
debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
Now dropping the subject,
Jane
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lynda" <lurine@s...> wrote:
> Actually, Horizon does NOT run those programs as a service for
people who
> want to homeschool. You can put any face on it you want to justify
how one
> supposedly homeschools or unschools. They are in the business of
making
> money off the public school system. Randy could care less whether
anyone
> succeeds or fails as long as the money keeps rolling in. Charters
were NOT
> invented in CA so people could homeschool. They were originally
invented so
> that alternative schools could be set up where the parents would
control
> what was happening. They then progressed to including various
forms of
> homeschooling. However, they are part of the public school system,
and they
> have basic requirements that must be met including enrollment,
signed
> agreements, vaccinations and approved curriculum. If they aren't
meeting
> them, then the legislature will finish what they started two years
ago and
> shut them all down. Horizon is one of the ones under investigation
for
> misappropriate of funds.
>
> To be part of Horizon, you must sign an agreement, turn in roll
sheets and
> learning records every 20 school days. You must meet with an ES
every 20
> school days or more frequently if needed/desired. "All students in
charter
> schools are required to achieve at least as much learning as would
be
> required in the regular schools in California." "The learning
records must
> be sent to the Lincoln office electronically within seven (7)
rotations of
> the earth after the learning period of no more than 20 school days."
> "Included on the learning record format is a listing of the student
> standards in each growth area." "The ES evaluates the learning by
> indicating the student standards in which progress has occurred
during the
> learning period." "Learning records must be written to reflect the
> requirements of independent study law." "Learning records will
include
> descriptions of the major objectives and activities of the course
of study
> covered by the agreement that were used within each assignment
period."
> "This Charter School must administer any state mandated test
whenever one is
> provided. The state mandated test for the school year 2000/01 is
the STAR9."
> "Each parent facilitator is required to sign a contract between the
parent
> and the charter school" "Students will demonstrate competency in
seven
> growth area goals, determined by achievement of the student
standards."
> "Charter school students will perform and achieve as well as or
better than
> students in traditional California public schools" "Students will
achieve
> competency in basic academic skills"
>
> Sorry, this isn't homeschooling, this is public school independent
study
> with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at home. It sure
isn't
> unschooling.
>
> And some folks in CA do homeschool and have for years. They may
not be
> technically legal but they are homeschooling. And, filing an R4
does not
> put you at the government trough, nor does it have government
regulated
> requirements and government regulated standards that are enforced
by monthly
> meetings with public school officials with "mandatory: portfolio,
monthly
> review of work, Star test."
>
> Lynda
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cindy Ferguson" <crma@i...>
> To: <Unschooling-dotcom@y...>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] LONG: Research on Dr. Cynthia
Hamilton>
> >
> > Lynda wrote:
> > >
> > > ***Actually, he wasn't really homeschooled. He was enrolled in
a
> California
> > > public school system charter school. Horizon, a for profit
> organization,
> > > runs several of the charter schools for various public schools
and this
> is
> > > the program they enrolled in.
> > >
> >
> > Horizon runs these programs as services for people who want to
educate
> > their children at home.
> >
> > If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is
homeschooled. A
> > child is enrolled in a public school, a private school or is
truant. I
> > really don't think we want to get into a debate about who are real
> > homeschoolers in CA.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Cindy Ferguson
> > crma@i...
> >
> > Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> > Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
> >
> > Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> > http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/1/2001 6:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jforgey@... writes:
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jforgey@... writes:
> Or again as Cindy put it <<I;) Jane. . . good luck with that!!
> debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
>
> Now dropping the subject,
> Jane
>
>
>
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenni Dreams
--- Lynda <lurine@...> wrote:
independent study
with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at
home. It sure isn't
unschooling.
had to apply those rules as you outlined in your post,
we would've been put away by the Ca. system by now.
Thank goodness we aren't in that boat!
Thanks for the informative post about the charter
schools. I've always been curious about them.
=====
JenniD.
>snip<Sorry, this isn't homeschooling, this is public school
independent study
with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at
home. It sure isn't
unschooling.
>snip<no, it isn't. We've always been unschoolers and if I
had to apply those rules as you outlined in your post,
we would've been put away by the Ca. system by now.
Thank goodness we aren't in that boat!
Thanks for the informative post about the charter
schools. I've always been curious about them.
=====
JenniD.
[email protected]
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Jenni Dreams
<mamaskeeper@...> writes:
California charter school for a couple of years now, and I feel wrong
saying nothing. I don't work for Horizon, but I have friends who do. They
are probably one of the most unschooling-friendly in the bay area - they
actually do inservices for their ES's on different methods of
homeschooling, including unschooling.
Yes, the "requirements" sound restrictive, but if you read them more
carefully, with a sort of creative eye, they're not too bad, and they're
vague enough to be pretty workable. For example, "achieve at least as
much learning as would be required in the regular schools in California"
is pretty vague, and clearly the criteria is equivalent, not identical.
Considering how little is actually learned in the public schools, I don't
see this as even being a question. I'm not sure how Horizon works the
student standards part, but I've had no trouble finding a state standard
that matches almost anything a kid is doing. Sorting pokemon cards meets
a standard. Eating at an Indian restaurant meets a standard. Reading
archie comics for months on end meets a standard... there is no
requirement that "First grade standards" must be learned in first grade,
not yet anyway...
As far as testing, no child in California, whether enrolled in a public
or private school, is required to take any standardized test. Yes, the
school is required to give it, but no one needs to come.... as far as
vaccinations, the requirements are the same for students in a charter
school or those filing an R-4 (the private school homeschooling option).
You are legally required to have an immunization record or exemption form
for each child.
A lot of it seems to come down to the "education specialist" you're
working with. Some will require "schooly" things... my take on it was
that I wanted people to just do what they were doing anyway, and I would
turn it into acceptable paperwork. Things were a lot easier before the
Jan. 1, 2000 law change... but even now it works for most kids that I
have worked with. It *is* work - you have to be willing to sit down and
think about (or take notes on) things that are happening through the
month, and most charters require that your kids give up some "work
samples" - ours are generally photos, score sheets from games, and
little bits of paper with stuff like "When will you be off the fone?!?!!"
written on them. Even though I work for the charter, my daughter doesn't
have to be enrolled, but she has wanted to do so because of the extra
$1100 a year she gets through them, for tie dye kits and sculpey and
worms and any book her little heart desires...
With that said, I'm pretty sure that even with my talent at
educationalese, a lot of my paperwork is probably not what the state has
in mind. It has passed a couple of audits, but mostly the audits were to
make sure the dates matched and the forms were all signed in the right
places. OTOH, I do think it's pretty cool to imagine the bigwigs at the
state reading about Calvin and Hobbes in language arts, and Monty Python
videos in Social Studies, and stringing necklaces in Math, and riding
roller coasters and skateboarding in Science. I have only just managed to
restrain myself from turning in work sample mad libs that say things like
"One day a butthead man was walking down the weewee."
Anyway, if it all ends tomorrow I'm okay with that, it really is honestly
all about the money. Because of a variety of factors we won't be
chartering next yeaf, either as a student or employee. The direction
things are going is not good, but it has been fun while it lasted. I do
think, though, that it is dead wrong to say that what we're doing is not
homeschooling, or unschooling, just because we sit down once a month and
write up what we did. I don't think anyone could spend a day or week or
month with us and say that..
daron
<mamaskeeper@...> writes:
> no, it isn't. We've always been unschoolers and if II may regret this, but I've worked for and enrolled my child in a
> had to apply those rules as you outlined in your post,
> we would've been put away by the Ca. system by now.
> Thank goodness we aren't in that boat!
> Thanks for the informative post about the charter
> schools. I've always been curious about them.
California charter school for a couple of years now, and I feel wrong
saying nothing. I don't work for Horizon, but I have friends who do. They
are probably one of the most unschooling-friendly in the bay area - they
actually do inservices for their ES's on different methods of
homeschooling, including unschooling.
Yes, the "requirements" sound restrictive, but if you read them more
carefully, with a sort of creative eye, they're not too bad, and they're
vague enough to be pretty workable. For example, "achieve at least as
much learning as would be required in the regular schools in California"
is pretty vague, and clearly the criteria is equivalent, not identical.
Considering how little is actually learned in the public schools, I don't
see this as even being a question. I'm not sure how Horizon works the
student standards part, but I've had no trouble finding a state standard
that matches almost anything a kid is doing. Sorting pokemon cards meets
a standard. Eating at an Indian restaurant meets a standard. Reading
archie comics for months on end meets a standard... there is no
requirement that "First grade standards" must be learned in first grade,
not yet anyway...
As far as testing, no child in California, whether enrolled in a public
or private school, is required to take any standardized test. Yes, the
school is required to give it, but no one needs to come.... as far as
vaccinations, the requirements are the same for students in a charter
school or those filing an R-4 (the private school homeschooling option).
You are legally required to have an immunization record or exemption form
for each child.
A lot of it seems to come down to the "education specialist" you're
working with. Some will require "schooly" things... my take on it was
that I wanted people to just do what they were doing anyway, and I would
turn it into acceptable paperwork. Things were a lot easier before the
Jan. 1, 2000 law change... but even now it works for most kids that I
have worked with. It *is* work - you have to be willing to sit down and
think about (or take notes on) things that are happening through the
month, and most charters require that your kids give up some "work
samples" - ours are generally photos, score sheets from games, and
little bits of paper with stuff like "When will you be off the fone?!?!!"
written on them. Even though I work for the charter, my daughter doesn't
have to be enrolled, but she has wanted to do so because of the extra
$1100 a year she gets through them, for tie dye kits and sculpey and
worms and any book her little heart desires...
With that said, I'm pretty sure that even with my talent at
educationalese, a lot of my paperwork is probably not what the state has
in mind. It has passed a couple of audits, but mostly the audits were to
make sure the dates matched and the forms were all signed in the right
places. OTOH, I do think it's pretty cool to imagine the bigwigs at the
state reading about Calvin and Hobbes in language arts, and Monty Python
videos in Social Studies, and stringing necklaces in Math, and riding
roller coasters and skateboarding in Science. I have only just managed to
restrain myself from turning in work sample mad libs that say things like
"One day a butthead man was walking down the weewee."
Anyway, if it all ends tomorrow I'm okay with that, it really is honestly
all about the money. Because of a variety of factors we won't be
chartering next yeaf, either as a student or employee. The direction
things are going is not good, but it has been fun while it lasted. I do
think, though, that it is dead wrong to say that what we're doing is not
homeschooling, or unschooling, just because we sit down once a month and
write up what we did. I don't think anyone could spend a day or week or
month with us and say that..
daron
[email protected]
to lovemary -
First of all, I like you signature. Secondly, I understand your
statement all too well.
So, off to another subject, shall we?
Does anyone know if the boy who won the National Spelling Contest was
a homeschooler or not? I remember him from previous year(s) but can't
remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
Jane
First of all, I like you signature. Secondly, I understand your
statement all too well.
So, off to another subject, shall we?
Does anyone know if the boy who won the National Spelling Contest was
a homeschooler or not? I remember him from previous year(s) but can't
remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
Jane
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., lite2yu@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/1/2001 6:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jforgey@t... writes:
>
>
> > Or again as Cindy put it <<I
> > debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
> >
> > Now dropping the subject,
> > Jane
> >
> >
> >
>
> ;) Jane. . . good luck with that!!
>
> lovemary
> If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at
yourself, and then
> make a change.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
What Cindi Hamilton describes is school-at-home, very H$LDA and Gothard,
with a very HEAVY emphasis on teaching hard-core academics early. She lists
precisely what should be taught when and in what order--penmanship at age
4-5, two years (begun in 3rd grade or ASAP) of Latin followed by Greek, etc.
Lynda
with a very HEAVY emphasis on teaching hard-core academics early. She lists
precisely what should be taught when and in what order--penmanship at age
4-5, two years (begun in 3rd grade or ASAP) of Latin followed by Greek, etc.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <freeform@...>
> Anyway, if it all ends tomorrow I'm okay with that, it really is honestly
> all about the money. Because of a variety of factors we won't be
> chartering next yeaf, either as a student or employee. The direction
> things are going is not good, but it has been fun while it lasted. I do
> think, though, that it is dead wrong to say that what we're doing is not
> homeschooling, or unschooling, just because we sit down once a month and
> write up what we did. I don't think anyone could spend a day or week or
> month with us and say that..
>
> daron
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Lynda
California does NOT make it hard to homeschool. You don't have to register
with a charter or an umbrella school. Most folks who "were" homeschoolers
and are now using charters answered on a survey that the reason they did it
was the "free" money--$750 to $1400 a year in supplies.
Lynda
with a charter or an umbrella school. Most folks who "were" homeschoolers
and are now using charters answered on a survey that the reason they did it
was the "free" money--$750 to $1400 a year in supplies.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <jforgey@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: LONG: Research on Dr. Cynthia Hamilton
> I think Cindy isn't here to answer and probably wouldn't care to do
> so. Besides, I think she put it very succintly in her previous
> post....
>
> Cindy wrote <<If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is
> homeschooled. A child is enrolled in a public school, a private
> school or is truant. I really don't think we want to get into a
> debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
>
> The definition of what is 'homeschooling' is as varied as the number
> and types of homeschooling families. It's too bad that an attitude
> has developed among homeschoolers who think 'that person isn't really
> homeschooling' because they aren't doing it exactly as THEY would
> define it. I mean, I've met people who wouldn't consider anyone truly
> homeschoolers unless they're doing it for religious reasons.
> Obviously, there are lots of us who would argue against that
> definition.
>
> The point is that if you live in a state that makes it hard to
> homeschool, you do what you can and have to in order to live your
> life and homeschool the way you can. If I had to be 'registered'
> under a private or charter school to keep my child home and teach her
> myself, I would. That doesn't mean I'm not just playing their game
> and then doing what I want.
>
> Or again as Cindy put it <<I really don't think we want to get into a
> debate about who are real homeschoolers in CA.>>
>
> Now dropping the subject,
> Jane
>
>
>
>
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lynda" <lurine@s...> wrote:
> > Actually, Horizon does NOT run those programs as a service for
> people who
> > want to homeschool. You can put any face on it you want to justify
> how one
> > supposedly homeschools or unschools. They are in the business of
> making
> > money off the public school system. Randy could care less whether
> anyone
> > succeeds or fails as long as the money keeps rolling in. Charters
> were NOT
> > invented in CA so people could homeschool. They were originally
> invented so
> > that alternative schools could be set up where the parents would
> control
> > what was happening. They then progressed to including various
> forms of
> > homeschooling. However, they are part of the public school system,
> and they
> > have basic requirements that must be met including enrollment,
> signed
> > agreements, vaccinations and approved curriculum. If they aren't
> meeting
> > them, then the legislature will finish what they started two years
> ago and
> > shut them all down. Horizon is one of the ones under investigation
> for
> > misappropriate of funds.
> >
> > To be part of Horizon, you must sign an agreement, turn in roll
> sheets and
> > learning records every 20 school days. You must meet with an ES
> every 20
> > school days or more frequently if needed/desired. "All students in
> charter
> > schools are required to achieve at least as much learning as would
> be
> > required in the regular schools in California." "The learning
> records must
> > be sent to the Lincoln office electronically within seven (7)
> rotations of
> > the earth after the learning period of no more than 20 school days."
> > "Included on the learning record format is a listing of the student
> > standards in each growth area." "The ES evaluates the learning by
> > indicating the student standards in which progress has occurred
> during the
> > learning period." "Learning records must be written to reflect the
> > requirements of independent study law." "Learning records will
> include
> > descriptions of the major objectives and activities of the course
> of study
> > covered by the agreement that were used within each assignment
> period."
> > "This Charter School must administer any state mandated test
> whenever one is
> > provided. The state mandated test for the school year 2000/01 is
> the STAR9."
> > "Each parent facilitator is required to sign a contract between the
> parent
> > and the charter school" "Students will demonstrate competency in
> seven
> > growth area goals, determined by achievement of the student
> standards."
> > "Charter school students will perform and achieve as well as or
> better than
> > students in traditional California public schools" "Students will
> achieve
> > competency in basic academic skills"
> >
> > Sorry, this isn't homeschooling, this is public school independent
> study
> > with lots of criteria. At the least it is school at home. It sure
> isn't
> > unschooling.
> >
> > And some folks in CA do homeschool and have for years. They may
> not be
> > technically legal but they are homeschooling. And, filing an R4
> does not
> > put you at the government trough, nor does it have government
> regulated
> > requirements and government regulated standards that are enforced
> by monthly
> > meetings with public school officials with "mandatory: portfolio,
> monthly
> > review of work, Star test."
> >
> > Lynda
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cindy Ferguson" <crma@i...>
> > To: <Unschooling-dotcom@y...>
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] LONG: Research on Dr. Cynthia
> Hamilton>
> > >
> > > Lynda wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ***Actually, he wasn't really homeschooled. He was enrolled in
> a
> > California
> > > > public school system charter school. Horizon, a for profit
> > organization,
> > > > runs several of the charter schools for various public schools
> and this
> > is
> > > > the program they enrolled in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Horizon runs these programs as services for people who want to
> educate
> > > their children at home.
> > >
> > > If you want to be nit-picky, no one in California is
> homeschooled. A
> > > child is enrolled in a public school, a private school or is
> truant. I
> > > really don't think we want to get into a debate about who are real
> > > homeschoolers in CA.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Cindy Ferguson
> > > crma@i...
> > >
> > > Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> > > Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> > > http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
> > >
> > > Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> > > http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/1/2001 11:08:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jforgey@... writes:
I watched a bit of it on ESPN, and I can hardly believe it. My daughter is
the same age as some of them, and I did not even know the words they were
asking for most of what I heard. Who in the world uses these words on a daily
basis? Oh well, to each their own I guess. I love spelling and always have,
but I found this a bit surreal. (Gee, hope thats spelled right!!)
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jforgey@... writes:
> So, off to another subject, shall we?:) Absolutely Jane. I don't know if the young person was a homeschooler, but
>
> Does anyone know if the boy who won the National Spelling Contest was
> a homeschooler or not? I remember him from previous year(s) but can't
> remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
>
> Jane
>
>
>
I watched a bit of it on ESPN, and I can hardly believe it. My daughter is
the same age as some of them, and I did not even know the words they were
asking for most of what I heard. Who in the world uses these words on a daily
basis? Oh well, to each their own I guess. I love spelling and always have,
but I found this a bit surreal. (Gee, hope thats spelled right!!)
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 06/02/2001 2:14:08 AM !!!First Boot!!!, freeform@...
writes:
Options -- that's all I want -- lots and lots of options!
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> Anyway, if it all ends tomorrow I'm okay with that, it really is honestlyWell, they could say it -- but that wouldn't make it true.
> all about the money. Because of a variety of factors we won't be
> chartering next yeaf, either as a student or employee. The direction
> things are going is not good, but it has been fun while it lasted. I do
> think, though, that it is dead wrong to say that what we're doing is not
> homeschooling, or unschooling, just because we sit down once a month and
> write up what we did. I don't think anyone could spend a day or week or
> month with us and say that..
>
> daron
>
>
Options -- that's all I want -- lots and lots of options!
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 06/02/2001 3:08:46 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
jforgey@... writes:
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jforgey@... writes:
> I remember him from previous year(s) but can'tUp until this year.
> remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
>
> Jane
>
>
>
>
>
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
What happened to him this year? And if he's in ps or private, then
at least he got his start in homeschooling - I hope.
Jane
at least he got his start in homeschooling - I hope.
Jane
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., marbleface@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 06/02/2001 3:08:46 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> jforgey@t... writes:
>
>
> > I remember him from previous year(s) but can't
> > remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
> >
> > Jane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Up until this year.
>
> Nance
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
Oops. I just found the answer to my own question on the post of HEM
news.
Thanks,
Jane
news.
Thanks,
Jane
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., jforgey@t... wrote:
> What happened to him this year? And if he's in ps or private, then
> at least he got his start in homeschooling - I hope.
>
> Jane
>
>
>
>
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., marbleface@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 06/02/2001 3:08:46 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> > jforgey@t... writes:
> >
> >
> > > I remember him from previous year(s) but can't
> > > remember if he was a homeschooler or not.
> > >
> > > Jane
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Up until this year.
> >
> > Nance
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]