Archive for March, 2008
March 12, 2008 @ 6:41 pm | Filed under:
Links March 11, 2008 @ 7:43 pm | Filed under:
Art,
Photos 
Remember how y’all thought my water-spotted windows gave the nasturtiums photo a nice impressionist look?
Alli took it to the next level. I admit it: I would seriously hang this on my wall. Oh my goodness. She did a Van Gogh version too, and I’m totally torn.
I’ll never look at a dirty window the same way again.
March 11, 2008 @ 7:08 pm | Filed under:
Bloggity I’m the number one Google hit for “Elvis little more satisfaction.”
Recently the NY State Board of Regents announced NY public school districts will no longer provide special services such as speech therapy or occupational therapy to homeschooled students. Mind you, New York’s private school students still qualify for these free public services, but the Board of Regents has decided to deny them to homeschooled children. Never mind that the reason some of these special-needs students are being homeschooled in the first place is because the public schools were unable to meet their academic needs in the classroom.
I just received notice that next Monday and Tuesday, the Board of Regents will revisit this issue at a meeting. Representatives of LEAH, a state homeschooling association, write:
This is our very best, and possibly only chance to make our case for reinstatement of these vital services. While there may not be a definitive resolution coming from this meeting alone, we have been told that the issue would be addressed so that at least the issue can continued to be discussed by them and the home school community. And while a straight forward reversal of the policy is probably not possible because of the legal basis of the ruling, this is our opportunity to get the Regents to start to act to make a new regulation correcting the legal discrepancy, or support a new State law to fix it.
For more information, visit the LEAH website.
Thanks, Andrea, for passing along the information.
This just in:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell announced today that the California Department of Education has completed a legal review of the February 28 California Court of Appeal ruling regarding home schooling. O’Connell issued the following statement:
“I have reviewed this case, and I want to assure parents that chose to home school that California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling. Parents still have the right to home school in our state.
“Every child in our state has a legal right to get an education, and I want every child to get an education that will prepare them for success in college and the world of work in the challenging global economy.
“As the head of California’s public school system, I hope that every parent would want to send their children to public school. However, traditional public schools may not be the best fit for every student. Within the public school system there are a range of options available. Students can take independent study classes, attend a charter school, or participate in non-classroom-based programs. But some parents choose to send their children to private schools or to home school, and I respect that right.
“I admire the dedication of parents who commit to oversee their children’s education through home schooling. But, no matter what educational program a student participates in, it is critical that the program prepares them for future success in the global economy. I urge any parent who is considering or involved in home schooling their
children to take advantage of resources and support available through their county or district offices of education.”
March 11, 2008 @ 7:34 am | Filed under:
Links 
All the San Diego papers are raving about the spectacular wildflower season we’re having. Bountiful late-winter rains following last fall’s fierce wildfires have combined to create an abundance of bloom that dazzles our eyes wherever we go. Um, as I write this it occurs to me it might be a little insensitive, given what some of you are dealing with. Can you forgive me?
I snapped this picture of ooh-pretty purple wildflowers on tall leggy stalks during our Cowles Mountain hike the other day. According to the identification guide in the local paper, they are Desert Canterbury Bells. We saw lots of other varieties but I got no pictures and don’t know their names yet. We did spot some whimsically-named “grape soda lupines” in thick clusters on the hillsides all around town, and there are orange and yellow carpets at every turn.
Also blooming, and very wild:
There’s a question nagging at me regarding this court case. All the accounts I’ve read suggest that the family in question is indeed a troubled family, and that the children may be victims of abuse. The children’s representatives have sought, first in the lower court and then in the appellate court, to have the children enrolled in a public school so that (to quote the appellate court’s ruling), “(1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.”
Is it the court’s opinion, then, that the watchful eye of the public school system is enough to protect these children from abuses they may be suffering at home? (Are no public school students ever the victims of child abuse?) My question is: if the children are indeed at risk, why have they not been removed from the home?
It seems to me this case has nothing to do with homeschooling and everything to do with child welfare (as many other bloggers have mentioned). The court ruling has made it into a broad homeschooling issue, and I just don’t get that. Because the published ruling makes broad statements about the legality (or illegality) of homeschooling under the private school or ISP options as commonly practiced by California homeschoolers, the homeschooling community has had to rally in defense of our rights as parents. But none of us are arguing in defense of the parents in this case, if they have indeed endangered their children’s welfare.
Are these children really safe? If the court doesn’t think so, why stop at removing them from the home during school hours?
UPDATE from the CA Homeschooling Network:
California Assemblyman Joel Anderson is introducing a concurrent resolution in the Assembly. He is calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the recent court decision that could make homeschooling illegal.
This will happen fast, since it’s a resolution and not a bill. All California homeschoolers are encouraged to contact their legislators and ask them to support homeschoolers by voting yes on Joel Anderson’s ACR supporting homeschooling. We expect there will be a powerful response as California homeschoolers respond.
As information develops, it will be placed on CHN’s legal updates page.
I am very curious about this: “reversal of ruling” sounds like a different outcome than “depublishing the ruling.” Is this definitely what we want? I’ll post more info as I find it.
UPDATE: HomeSchool Association of California encourages people to support this resolution. (But I am still not sure why the assemblyman is calling for a reversal rather than depublishing. I’d like some more answers on this.) HSC Legislative Chair Debbie Schwartzer writes:
This is one case where I do encourage members of HSC and all other homeschoolers in the state to contact their representatives (currently, just the Assemblymembers, as it is not pending before the Senate and will just confuse your Senator’s office if you call now) and encourage them to vote in favor of ACR 115. You can find your Assemblymember and his or her contact information by going to www.leginfo.ca.gov, clicking on the blue box entitled “Your Legislature”, and entering your zip code.
Calls are fine, but letters faxed to the office are even better, as they then retain tangible evidence of their constituents’ positions.
The resolution reads as follows: (more…)
