Kontroversy *We will cross that bridge when we get to it*
Kontentious *The bridge may not be there when we arrive*
http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/proverbs/dont_cross_your_bridges.html
California, home to 1 in 9 American schoolchildren, is on the brink of what may be the biggest public education crisis in state history. Facing a $16 billion state budget shortfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed $4.8 billion in school-funding cuts, or 10 percent of education spending. In the past week, over 20,000 preliminary pink slips were sent by school districts to teachers and administrators state wide, according to the California Teachers Association. The association estimates another 87,000 (of a total 350,000 public school teachers) could come if Governor Schwarzenegger holds to his budget cut request. Some say the request is a cry of “wolf” intended to draw public attention and force stalemated politicians to reconsider the cuts – or raise taxes. Others say fiscal reality will push the cuts through as presented. Meanwhile, school districts and parents are in paroxysms over the thousands of teacher layoffs, the projected loss of librarians, nurses, counselors, and arts personnel; and the need to close schools, increase class sizes, and postpone buying new books. “This is a story that carries important lessons for how American states fund their public education,” says Michael Kirst, professor emeritus of education and business administration at Stanford University in Palo Alto. California’s Proposition 13 of 1978, which capped property taxes, made districts more dependent on state aid for education. The state, he says “has seen its public schools suffer ever since.” “Most states leave the cushion of allowing local government to raise property taxes when state school revenues don’t come through. This is a giant case study that they might want to keep that option or end up like California.” There are other problems with the state’s governance that have cost education in budget battles going back decades, Dr. Kirst and others say. State revenues are derived largely from capital-gains taxes and progressive income tax, a combination that causes wild swings in revenue. “[So] when times are good they are very good and when bad they are painful,” says Kirst. And because the state budget requires a two-thirds majority to pass, a handful of politicians can block it. “With the state GOP refusing to approve anything with revenue tied to it and Democrats unwilling to pass education cuts, it’s a recipe for this year’s stalemate,” says Kevin Gordon, president of School Innovations and Advocacy, the state’s largest lobbying firm for public schools.
[1]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0321/p02s01-usgn.html
[2]
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8642283
[3]
http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_8636324
[4]
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/BLOGS15/80320008
[5]
http://www.cbp.org/
[6]
http://www.ca.gov/
Point to debate:
What if Californian parents got together and created their own school?
Have Californians lost the pioneer spirit?
Q = Did the children on the wagon trains have to go to school?
A = On some wagon trains an older person would go over lessons with the children when they stopped for lunch or dinner. On other wagon trains, children would study with their parents or older brothers or sisters.
http://www.blm.gov/or/oregontrail/education-kids-homework.php
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell comes to the defense of homeschool families. “The California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling. Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state,” he said. After the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles ruled on February 28 that parents had to be credentialed teachers to educate their own children, the statement from O’Connell is encouraging news for the homeschool community. “O’Connell has it right,” said Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA. “But the court decision must still be overturned before homeschool freedom can be restored in California.” The Court of Appeal ruling shocked the homeschool community because in one sweeping decision it effectively outlawed homeschooling. “We hope the statement from O’Connell puts the brakes on any enforcement action,” said Farris. HSLDA will be pursuing several legal options, including seeking review by the California Supreme Court and petitioning the same court to depublish the opinion in order to return California to being a state where a family can legally homeschool in California without fear. “We have just started the legal battle to restore homeschool freedom in California,” said Farris.
[01]
http://returnoftheconservatives.blogspot.com/2008/03/california-state-superintendent.html
[02]
http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/Content/Article.mxp/ArticleID-f9114722-fc33-4693-8947-cc772d53bb70
[03]
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080316/31537_Court_Asked_to_Reconsider_Homeschool_Ruling.htm
[04]
http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/03/ted-gaines-update-leadership-o/
[05]
http://toleavealegacy.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/the-criminalization-of-parents-homeschooling-in-california/
[06]
http://charleystar.typepad.com/charley_star/2008/03/protect-homesch.html
[07]
http://backwaterreport.com/?p=874
[08]
http://offthecuff.lurasbookcase.com/2008/03/14/calif-judge-crime-to-homeschool-kids-without-credentials/
[09]
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2008/03/14/congress-outraged-by-california-homeschool-case/
[10]
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1721703%2C00.html
[11]
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art56053.asp
The war on homeschooling is a longstanding one. Parents who take their children’s education into their own hands threaten the creaking, bloated public school monopoly here at home and abroad. The HS community is buzzing about the latest salvo in the war–a troubling ruling in California that imposes credentialing requirements on parents: Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California’s home schooling families. Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation. “This decision is a direct hit against every home schooler in California,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. “If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California.” The institute estimates there are as many as 166,000 California students who are home schooled. State Department of Education officials say there is no way to know the true number. Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor. The California Department of Education currently allows home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts while still teaching at home. California does little to enforce those provisions and insists it is the local school districts’ responsibility. In addition, state education officials say some parents home school their children without the knowledge of any entity. Home schoolers and government officials have largely accepted this murky arrangement. “This works so well, I don’t see any reason to change it,” said J. Michael Smith, president of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Assn. From the court opinion (the full PDF is here): “Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. “Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.” Homeschooling parents of more than 166,000 children in California could face criminal charges. Government monopolies die hard. *** The Pacific Justice Institute is defending the homeschoolers. More here. Details about the family: The appellate court ruling stems from a case involving Lynwood parents Phillip and Mary Long, who were repeatedly referred to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services over various allegations, including claims of physical abuse, involving some of their eight children. All of the children are currently or had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, where they would occasionally take tests, but were educated in their home by their mother, Phillip Long said. A lawyer appointed to represent two of the Long’s young children requested that the court require them to physically attend a public or private school where adults could monitor their well-being. A trial court disagreed, but the children’s lawyer appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction over Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The appellate panel ruled that Sunland officials’ occasional monitoring of the Longs’ home schooling — with the children taking some tests at the school — is insufficient to qualify as being enrolled in a private school. Since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential, the family is violating state laws, the ruling said. *** Homeschoolers point out that the ruling could have serious implications for families considering withdrawing from California public schools over SB777, which critics say is a mandate for left-wing sexual indoctrination. Stay tuned. *** Update: Gabriel Malor says homeschoolers and bloggers like me are overreacting to the ruling. The Home School Legal Defense Association, whose legal counsels have been battling the anti-homeschooling forces for decades, weighs in and sees plenty of cause for alarm: On February 28, 2008, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a juvenile court proceeding that declared that almost all forms of homeschooling in California are in violation of state law. (Private tutoring by certified teachers remains an option.) Moreover, the court ruled that parents possess no constitutional right to homeschool their children. This family was not a member of Home School Legal Defense Association. They were represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the proceeding. Since it was by law a confidential proceeding, to the best of our knowledge neither HSLDA nor any other legal advocacy organization had any knowledge that the right of all homeschoolers in California was depending upon the outcome of this family’s case. There are two appellate options at this time. First, we have been told that the family is appealing this decision to the California Supreme Court with their California counsel. HSLDA will file an amicus brief on behalf of our 13,500 member families in California. We will argue that a proper interpretation of California statutes makes it clear that parents may legally teach their own children under the private-school exemption. However, if the court disagrees with our statutory argument, we will argue that the California statutes as interpreted by the Court of Appeal violate the constitutional rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. HSLDA welcomes other organizations and persons to assist with the amicus process so that a full defense of home education, religious freedom, and parental rights can be given to the California Supreme Court. The second appellate option is to seek to have this particular decision “depublished.” Depublication is a decision that can only be made by the California Supreme Court. If the Court determines that the decision should stand, regarding this family, on the facts presented, but that the general pronouncements of law for all of homeschooling should not be determined by this case, then the Court has the option of “depublishing” the Court of Appeal’s decision. This would mean that the case is not binding precedent in California and has no effect on any other family. HSLDA will take the lead in an effort to seek to have this case depublished. Homeschooling has offered a great opportunity for families to give their children a quality education with a moral and philosophical approach that is consistent with each family’s beliefs. The ability to homeschool freely in California should not depend upon one family in a closed-door proceeding. All families should have the right to be heard since the rights of all are clearly at stake.
[01]
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/06/california-court-threatens-homeschoolers/
[02]
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=69235
[03]
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58205
[04]
http://bendegrow.com/2008/liberal-activist-judge-threatens-to-criminalize-homeschool-parents/
[05]
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/07b75e8a-e1d0-4c4b-99ae-4d9c02751e3d
[06]
http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2008/03/anyone-following-closely-recent-court.html
[07]
http://happymills.com/2008/03/06/homeschooling-under-fire-in-california/
[08]
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006717.cfm
[09]
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22862
[10]
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22858
Ahh. Another year, another Sex Issue survey. While the results vary each year, the main purpose of survey remains constant: to discover students’ expectations, experiences and opinions on relationships and sex. However, there were some notable changes made this year. 2008 marked the first time Student Life conducted the survey online, leading to an unprecedented 1550 undergraduate responses collected. The survey has a theoretical margin of error of two percent. We also sorted some of the data based on gender, relationship status and other factors to see if there were any interesting delineations. However, no generalizations were made based on sexual orientation because the number of respondents who chose options other than heterosexual was too low to supply sufficient data for an accurate analysis.
haecus