A Wonderful Homily on Education

The following is a link to Patrick Madrid's Blog where you can hear the homily in full.
What Will You Say When God Asks: "Where Are Those Whom I Have Entrusted to You?"

Homeschoolers under Persecution in California

The following is a travesty for all homeschoolers in America.

Homeschoolers' setback sends shock waves through state

Bob Egelko and Jill

TuckerSan Francisco Chronicle

March 7, 2008

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

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming. "At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation." The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level. "California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws." Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said. "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union. "We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting." A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."

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

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools. Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight. Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree. "I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments." She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs. The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."

Began as child welfare case

The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case. A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education." The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said. Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state. "California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law. "They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers." Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

Just One More Reason to Homeschool.

Maryland Judge Rules Against Parents on Homosexual Curriculum

LifeSiteNews
February 8, 2008

"Judge Rowan's ruling gives a green light to homosexual groups throughout Maryland to pressure school boards to adopt similar policies." Richard Thompson,Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI (LifeSiteNews) - Maryland Circuit Court Judge William J. Rowan, III, ruled last week that it is permissible to teach 8th and 10th grade Montgomery County public school students how to use condoms during anal and oral sex, as well as that homosexuality is inborn, even though in 2007 Maryland's highest appellate court ruled there is no scientific basis for such a conclusion. The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.

That sexual orientation is innate is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states including Maryland. Maryland's highest appellate court issued an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, holding that the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence. In fact, not one U.S. court presented with the issue has found homosexuality to be an innate characteristic.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays had asked the Judge Rowan to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland to teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuals are born that way, and how to use condoms during anal and oral sex.

274 Montgomery area doctors signed a petition objecting to the curriculum which promotes the notion that the use of condoms prevents disease in anal intercourse.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, "Judge Rowan's ruling gives a green light to homosexual groups throughout Maryland to pressure school boards to adopt similar policies. We will be meeting with our clients next week regarding an appeal. "

Montgomery educators defended their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro family groups.

Brandon Bolling, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who argued the case, asked Judge Rowan to either declare the curriculum illegal or send it back to the state board of education for another review. "Maryland law says that you have to teach something that is factually accurate," said Bolling. "They are not doing that, therefore it is illegal. "