Cathy
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Replace Wisconsin with the State of your Choice
Just replace Wisconsin with the name of a State of your choice, the message still holds true.
Cathy
Cathy
After Madison, I am Glad Croydon does not have a Teachers' Union
After the past week's event in Madison I am glad Croydon does not have a Teachers' Union. It is bad enough that we have to deal with Newport's Teachers' Unions. Lets hope Croydon stays union free.
Unions are nothing more than legalized gangs or mobs, IMHO. I never liked unions, always hated working with people who did not like working as hard as me or told me to slow down you are working too fast or working too hard.
Oh and look at the signs union teachers made, do you really want people like this teaching your children?
Quote of the Day - As Sen. Barry Goldwater observed in Conscience of a Conservative, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association for union members. But "[e]mployers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons. The same reasons [should] apply to unions...Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies -- whether corporate or union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power" -- whether it be unrestrained management power or unrestrained union power.
The following piece appeared on the American Thinker.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
February 21, 2011
Why I Changed My Mind About Unions
By Michael Filozof
The organized tactics of intimidation by the public employee unions in Wisconsin last week came as no surprise to me. I'm from New York, one of the most union-friendly states in the country, and I've seen the negative effects of unions my entire life.
I dislike unions. But I didn't always feel that way. My first job as a 16-year old grocery store shelf-stocker was a union job. I grew up in a union household; my father was an employee of one of the Big Three automakers. Although he wasn't active in union politics, he worked in a "union shop" and was required to be a member. He always credited the union for the standard of living and benefits he enjoyed. When I was in grade school, the social studies curriculum taught the evils of management and the glory of organized labor, with morality tales like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911. Management had locked the doors to prevent non-unionized employees from leaving; when the place caught fire, workers were forced to jump to their deaths or be burned alive. Who could argue against the progress unions had made in safety and wages? In our blue-collar universe, there was one simple explanation for everything: management bad, unions good.
The industrial economy of Western New York imploded in the 1980s with the closing of the Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna, which had once employed over 20,000 people. I'd heard stories about union people who worked in the steel mill or the auto plants who would punch the clock and than find a place to sleep all day, or would get drunk at lunchtime and return to work and still not get fired -- but those stories never really registered with me when I was a student. No one ever blamed overpriced union labor for forcing the big industrial employers out of the region; it was always foreign competition or management greed or rich fat-cats. It didn't matter to me; I was going to college, anyway.
I'd never heard word of criticism about unions in my life until I was in college and worked summers for a small, independent contractor with only two full-time employees. Those guys were courteous, professional, diligent craftsmen who worked very, very hard -- and they hated unions. Before long I'd discover why.
Right around the time I graduated, it happened that my Dad needed a ride from work. I went to pick him up. I was wearing a shirt and tie that day, and when I went in to get him he gave me a tour of the place. I'd never actually seen heavy industry in action, and it's very difficult to visualize without seeing it firsthand. I looked around, fascinated, while he leaned toward me, shouting explanations over the din of the machinery and pointing has he talked.
Then, some longhaired, leather-jacketed maggot with a scruffy goatee drove past on a forklift. Neither one of us knew him, but seeing an older man explaining things to a young kid in a tie, he must've thought I was a new hire, and shouted out "This f___ing job suuuucks!" as he drove past. He couldn't get fired for that, thanks to the union. And I am certain that he was making more money back then than I've ever made in my life, and I have three college degrees.
A few years later, studying for my Master's degree, I lived in a low-rent apartment. A tenant in one of the other units was a union roofer. From November to April, he'd get $400 a week in unemployment. It seems that in our state union employees didn't have to look for non-union work. If the union didn't call, the unemployment check was a certainty. But the phone stayed off the hook all winter to make sure the union couldn't call anyway. He wasn't idle, though; he worked "under the table" all winter doing side jobs tax-free while collecting unemployment. In the summer when he did union work he'd tell stories about the roofers getting drunk and stoned at lunchtime and making $22 an hour.
That really frosted me. Why in hell was I bothering to get a postgraduate degree while a semiliterate guy who barely made it through high school got $400 a week for not working half the year? The scales fell from my eyes. Management wasn't the root of all evil. Union workers were just as lazy, greedy, and corrupt. I now saw the union as a grand rip-off. The union working man wasn't some noble, virtuous saint, fighting the good fight against the Robber Barons, as I'd always been taught. He was a drunken, stoned, uneducated, vulgar slob, ripping off a piece of the action for himself. And in my state he had the full force of the law and the state government behind him. So private sector employers fled.
The unions have chased the private sector out of the Great Lakes "Rust Belt." But the government can't go out of business, and the unions here have a stranglehold on the government. If you want to make money in New York State, don't be a fool and go to college. Get a government union job instead.
Last year, a Buffalo city cop retired with a pension of $105,000 per year after making $189,000 in his final year on the job. If he lives another 20 years he'll cost the taxpayers $2.1 million for not working. The union contract allowed employees with the most seniority to get first dibs on overtime; it also allowed them to calculate their pensions on the overtime-inflated salaries. Also last year the New York Post reported that some unionized janitors in New York City public schools earned over $140,000, including one who made $181,000. Public sector union contracts here allow union stewards to be paid their full salary while they do union business full-time -- thus, they are paid by the taxpayers to lobby against the taxpayers for more taxpayer money. It's insane.
Buffalo is a place where actual union thuggery, violence and vandalism still exists in the 21st century. In 2010, members of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 17, an AFL-CIO affiliate, pleaded guilty to Federal racketeering charges. According to The Buffalo News, the union members were charged with "death threats and stabbings," "throwing scalding coffee at non-union workers," "telling a construction company official they were going to his home to sexually assault his wife," and "pouring sand into the engines of 18 pieces of [nonunion] construction equipment, causing $330,000 damage." What employer in his right mind would want to do business here?
I don't deny that some unions have made contributions to worker safety and quality of life. But it's simply not true that management is always bad and unions are always good.
As Sen. Barry Goldwater observed in Conscience of a Conservative, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association for union members. But "[e]mployers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons. The same reasons [should] apply to unions...Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies -- whether corporate or union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power" -- whether it be unrestrained management power or unrestrained union power.
Unions are nothing more than legalized gangs or mobs, IMHO. I never liked unions, always hated working with people who did not like working as hard as me or told me to slow down you are working too fast or working too hard.
Oh and look at the signs union teachers made, do you really want people like this teaching your children?
Quote of the Day - As Sen. Barry Goldwater observed in Conscience of a Conservative, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association for union members. But "[e]mployers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons. The same reasons [should] apply to unions...Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies -- whether corporate or union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power" -- whether it be unrestrained management power or unrestrained union power.
The following piece appeared on the American Thinker.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
February 21, 2011
Why I Changed My Mind About Unions
By Michael Filozof
The organized tactics of intimidation by the public employee unions in Wisconsin last week came as no surprise to me. I'm from New York, one of the most union-friendly states in the country, and I've seen the negative effects of unions my entire life.
I dislike unions. But I didn't always feel that way. My first job as a 16-year old grocery store shelf-stocker was a union job. I grew up in a union household; my father was an employee of one of the Big Three automakers. Although he wasn't active in union politics, he worked in a "union shop" and was required to be a member. He always credited the union for the standard of living and benefits he enjoyed. When I was in grade school, the social studies curriculum taught the evils of management and the glory of organized labor, with morality tales like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911. Management had locked the doors to prevent non-unionized employees from leaving; when the place caught fire, workers were forced to jump to their deaths or be burned alive. Who could argue against the progress unions had made in safety and wages? In our blue-collar universe, there was one simple explanation for everything: management bad, unions good.
The industrial economy of Western New York imploded in the 1980s with the closing of the Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna, which had once employed over 20,000 people. I'd heard stories about union people who worked in the steel mill or the auto plants who would punch the clock and than find a place to sleep all day, or would get drunk at lunchtime and return to work and still not get fired -- but those stories never really registered with me when I was a student. No one ever blamed overpriced union labor for forcing the big industrial employers out of the region; it was always foreign competition or management greed or rich fat-cats. It didn't matter to me; I was going to college, anyway.
I'd never heard word of criticism about unions in my life until I was in college and worked summers for a small, independent contractor with only two full-time employees. Those guys were courteous, professional, diligent craftsmen who worked very, very hard -- and they hated unions. Before long I'd discover why.
Right around the time I graduated, it happened that my Dad needed a ride from work. I went to pick him up. I was wearing a shirt and tie that day, and when I went in to get him he gave me a tour of the place. I'd never actually seen heavy industry in action, and it's very difficult to visualize without seeing it firsthand. I looked around, fascinated, while he leaned toward me, shouting explanations over the din of the machinery and pointing has he talked.
Then, some longhaired, leather-jacketed maggot with a scruffy goatee drove past on a forklift. Neither one of us knew him, but seeing an older man explaining things to a young kid in a tie, he must've thought I was a new hire, and shouted out "This f___ing job suuuucks!" as he drove past. He couldn't get fired for that, thanks to the union. And I am certain that he was making more money back then than I've ever made in my life, and I have three college degrees.
A few years later, studying for my Master's degree, I lived in a low-rent apartment. A tenant in one of the other units was a union roofer. From November to April, he'd get $400 a week in unemployment. It seems that in our state union employees didn't have to look for non-union work. If the union didn't call, the unemployment check was a certainty. But the phone stayed off the hook all winter to make sure the union couldn't call anyway. He wasn't idle, though; he worked "under the table" all winter doing side jobs tax-free while collecting unemployment. In the summer when he did union work he'd tell stories about the roofers getting drunk and stoned at lunchtime and making $22 an hour.
That really frosted me. Why in hell was I bothering to get a postgraduate degree while a semiliterate guy who barely made it through high school got $400 a week for not working half the year? The scales fell from my eyes. Management wasn't the root of all evil. Union workers were just as lazy, greedy, and corrupt. I now saw the union as a grand rip-off. The union working man wasn't some noble, virtuous saint, fighting the good fight against the Robber Barons, as I'd always been taught. He was a drunken, stoned, uneducated, vulgar slob, ripping off a piece of the action for himself. And in my state he had the full force of the law and the state government behind him. So private sector employers fled.
The unions have chased the private sector out of the Great Lakes "Rust Belt." But the government can't go out of business, and the unions here have a stranglehold on the government. If you want to make money in New York State, don't be a fool and go to college. Get a government union job instead.
Last year, a Buffalo city cop retired with a pension of $105,000 per year after making $189,000 in his final year on the job. If he lives another 20 years he'll cost the taxpayers $2.1 million for not working. The union contract allowed employees with the most seniority to get first dibs on overtime; it also allowed them to calculate their pensions on the overtime-inflated salaries. Also last year the New York Post reported that some unionized janitors in New York City public schools earned over $140,000, including one who made $181,000. Public sector union contracts here allow union stewards to be paid their full salary while they do union business full-time -- thus, they are paid by the taxpayers to lobby against the taxpayers for more taxpayer money. It's insane.
Buffalo is a place where actual union thuggery, violence and vandalism still exists in the 21st century. In 2010, members of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 17, an AFL-CIO affiliate, pleaded guilty to Federal racketeering charges. According to The Buffalo News, the union members were charged with "death threats and stabbings," "throwing scalding coffee at non-union workers," "telling a construction company official they were going to his home to sexually assault his wife," and "pouring sand into the engines of 18 pieces of [nonunion] construction equipment, causing $330,000 damage." What employer in his right mind would want to do business here?
I don't deny that some unions have made contributions to worker safety and quality of life. But it's simply not true that management is always bad and unions are always good.
As Sen. Barry Goldwater observed in Conscience of a Conservative, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association for union members. But "[e]mployers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons. The same reasons [should] apply to unions...Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies -- whether corporate or union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power" -- whether it be unrestrained management power or unrestrained union power.
Monday, February 21, 2011
HB 595 not HB 301
Our Family supports HB 595 do you?
Quotes of the Day “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father." Thomas Jefferson
Education is a privilege and not a right. It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal. Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384.
Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance.
The following information came from the NH Parents First website.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Amendment to HB 595
Amend the bill by replacing it in its entirety with the following:
AN ACT amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes.
SPONSORS: Rep. L. Jones, Straf 1; Rep. Manuse, Rock 5; Rep. Cohn, Merr 6; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. C. Vita, Straf 3; Rep. Accornero, Belk 4; Rep. Avard, Hills 20; Rep. S. Palmer, Hills 6; Rep. Simpson, Belk 1; Sen. White, Dist 9; Sen. Forsythe, Dist 4; Sen. Luther, Dist 12
COMMITTEE: Education
ANALYSIS
This bill:
I. Repeals the home education statute.
II. Permits parent-directed instruction programs.
III. Asserts that it is the natural right of a parent to determine and direct the instruction of his or her child and limits the involvement of the state in parent-directed instruction programs only to cases in which there is probable cause to believe that a parent is not instructing his or her child.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0755
04/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Statement of Purpose. It is the natural right and duty of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children for their education. The general court acknowledges that the primary and natural instructors of a child are his or her parents, and the general court guarantees the right and duty of parents to provide for the instruction of their children. Parents shall be free to provide this instruction in the manner and at the location of their choosing, including in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognized or established by their resident school district or by the state or in other places where instruction can be given.
2 Child Protection Act; Definitions. Amend RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) to read as follows:
(b) Who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, [education as required by law,] or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, when it is established that his health has suffered or is very likely to suffer serious impairment; and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of the parents, guardian or custodian; or
3 Truant Officers; Duties. Amend RSA 189:36, I to read as follows:
I. Truant officers shall, when directed by the school board, enforce the laws and regulations relating to truants and children between the ages of 6 and 18 years not attending school or who are not participating in an alternative learning plan under RSA 193:1, I[(h)] (b)(8); and the laws relating to the attendance at school of children between the ages of 6 and 18 years; and shall have authority without a warrant to take and place in school any children found employed contrary to the laws relating to the employment of children, or violating the laws relating to the compulsory attendance at school of children under the age of 18 years, and the laws relating to child labor. No [home school pupil] child in a parent-directed instruction program nor any person between the ages of 6 and 18 who meets any of the requirements of RSA 193:1, I[(c)-(h)] (b)(2)-(8) shall be deemed a truant.
4 School Attendance; Duty of Parents. Amend the section heading of RSA 193:1 and RSA 193:1, I to read as follows:
193:1 Rights and Duties of [Parent] Parents; Compulsory Attendance by Pupil.
I. It is the natural right of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children. A parent of any child at least 6 years of age and under 18 years of age:
(a) Shall instruct such child or cause such child to be instructed as determined by the parent; or
(b) Shall cause such child to attend the public school to which the child is assigned in the child’s resident district. Such child shall attend the public school to which the child is assigned full time when such school is in session unless:
(1) The child is receiving parent-directed instruction and is therefore exempt from this requirement;
(A) Notification (optional). A parent may notify the superintendent of his or her resident school district or the principal of a nonpublic school of his or her decision to involve his or her child in a parent-directed instruction program pursuant to this section. Such notification shall not be required of a parent, and failure to send such notification shall not be considered probable cause under RSA 193:1(I-a).
(B) A parent who chooses to notify the superintendent of the resident school district or the principle of a nonpublic school under RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(A) may submit such notification within 14 days of the date the child is withdrawn from a public or nonpublic school, or moves into the resident school district, or reaches compulsory attendance age pursuant to this section. Notification may include the name, address, and age of each child whose education is being personally directed by the parent pursuant to this chapter. A parent may also send such notification if he or she ends a parent-directed instruction program for any period of time and then subsequently resumes such a program. A parent may choose to enroll a child previously involved in a parent-directed instruction program in a public or private school at any time that any other child may be enrolled.
(C) The superintendent of the resident school district or the principle of a nonpublic school receiving notification pursuant to RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(A) and to RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(B) shall provide written acknowledgment of the notification within 14 days of receipt of the notification.
(D) Privacy. Records or information maintained by the superintendent of the resident school district or the principal of a nonpublic school under this chapter shall not be public records pursuant to RSA 91-A and shall not be released to any person or agency without the express written consent of the parent.
[(a)] (2) The child is attending a New Hampshire public school outside the district to which the child is assigned or an approved New Hampshire private school for the same time;
[(b) The child is receiving home education pursuant to RSA 193-A and is therefore exempt from this requirement;
(c)] (3) The relevant school district superintendent has excused a child from attendance because the child is physically or mentally unable to attend school, or has been temporarily excused upon the request of the parent for purposes agreed upon by the school authorities and the parent. Such excused absences shall not be permitted if they cause a serious adverse effect upon the student’s educational progress. Students excused for such temporary absences may be claimed as full-time pupils for purposes of calculating state aid under RSA 186-C:18 and adequate education grants under RSA 198:41;
[(d)] (4) The child is attending a public or private school located in another state which has been approved by the state education agency of the state in which the school is located;
[(e)] (5) The pupil has been exempted from attendance pursuant to RSA 193:5;
[(f)] (6) The pupil has successfully completed all requirements for graduation and the school district is prepared to issue a diploma or the pupil has successfully achieved the equivalent of a high school diploma by [either:
(1)] obtaining a GED certificate[; or
(2) Documenting the completion of a home school program at the high school level by submitting a certificate or letter to the department of education];
[(g)] (7) The pupil has been accepted into an accredited postsecondary education program; or
[(h)] (8) The pupil obtains a waiver from the superintendent, which shall only be granted upon proof that the pupil is 16 years of age or older and has an alternative learning plan for obtaining either a high school diploma or its equivalent.
[(1)] (A) Alternative learning plans shall include age-appropriate academic rigor and the flexibility to incorporate the pupil’s interests and manner of learning. These plans may include, but are not limited to, such components or combination of components of extended learning opportunities as independent study, private instruction, performing groups, internships, community service, apprenticeships, and on-line courses.
[(2)] (B) Alternative learning plans shall be developed, and amended if necessary, in consultation with the pupil, a school guidance counselor, the school principal and at least one parent or guardian of the pupil, and submitted to the school district superintendent for approval.
[(3)] (C) If the superintendent does not approve the alternative learning plan, the parent or guardian of the pupil may appeal such decision to the local school board. A parent or guardian may appeal the decision of the local school board to the state board of education consistent with the provisions of RSA 21-N:11, III.
5 Compulsory School Attendance; Definitions. Amend RSA 193:1, III to read as follows:
III. In this section[,]:
(a) “Child” means a child or children of compulsory attendance age who is a resident of New Hampshire.
(b) “Parent” means a parent, guardian, or person having legal custody of a child.
(c) “Parent-directed instruction” means instruction determined and directed by the parent or guardian of a child who is of compulsory school age. Such instruction may also be referred to as “homeschooling.”
6 New Paragraph; School Attendance; Limitations on State, County and Municipal Action. Amend RSA 193:1 by inserting after paragraph 1 the following new paragraph:
I-a. Under no circumstances shall the neglect provisions of RSA 169-C and RSA 169-D apply to a parent involved in parent-directed instruction. Instead, only the following civil procedure shall apply to a parent involved in parent-directed instruction:
(a) Original jurisdiction of any action brought against a parent engaged in parent-directed instruction pursuant to this chapter shall be in the Superior Court in the county of the parent's residence.
(b) The state, a county or any local jurisdiction shall not interfere with the natural right of a parent to instruct his or her child unless the acting jurisdiction has probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed.
(c) If there is probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed, a local jurisdiction may investigate, after prior notice to the parent, to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the parent. The Division of Children, Youth and Family Services shall not investigate any case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed. No other state agency shall investigate any case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed. Not more than one jurisdiction shall ever investigate a case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed.
(d) A local jurisdiction shall only proceed against a parent in accordance with the Constitutional provisions for due process and a fair trial, during which the parent shall retain the presumption of innocence.
(e) A local jurisdiction shall not compel a parent to submit evidence to prove his or her innocence, nor shall the local jurisdiction presume such parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed based on the parent's failure to submit such evidence.
(f) In any action relating to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program, no finding or opinion that a parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed shall issue except upon evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
(g) A parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program who has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed may be found guilty only of a civil violation. Under no circumstances shall the state, a county, a local jurisdiction, or any other government official, including but not limited to a court, remove a child from a parent's custody based on an allegation or finding of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed or for any other allegation or finding pertaining to a parent-directed instruction program. Only after the procedure in this section has been followed, and a court has found by evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in three separate court proceedings, that a parent has failed to instruct the child or failed to cause the child to be instructed, may the court, as of the third court proceeding, order the child to be returned to a public or nonpublic school, as shall be determined by the parent.
(h) No state agency or local jurisdiction shall have authority to write or enforce rules relative to parent-directed instruction programs.
7 School Attendance; Access to Public School Programs. Amend RSA 193:1-c to read as follows:
193:1-c Access to Public School Programs by Pupils in Nonpublic or [Home Educated Pupils] Parent-Directed Instruction Programs.
I. Pupils in nonpublic or [home educated pupils] parent-directed instruction programs shall have access to curricular courses and cocurricular programs offered by the school district in which the pupil resides. The local school board may adopt a policy regulating participation in curricular courses and cocurricular programs, provided that such policy shall not be more restrictive for [non-public or home educated pupils] pupils in a nonpublic or parent-directed instruction program than the policy governing the school district’s resident pupils. In this section, “cocurricular” shall include those activities which are designed to supplement and enrich regular academic programs of study, provide opportunities for social development, and encourage participation in clubs, athletics, performing groups, and service to school and community. For purposes of allowing access as described in this section, a [“home educated pupil”] pupil in a parent-directed instruction program shall not include any pupil who has graduated from a high school level program [of home education,] or its equivalent, or has attained the age of 21.
II. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a parent to establish a [home education] parent-directed instruction program which exceeds the provisions of RSA 193:1.
8 School Attendance; Bylaws as to Nonattendance. Amend RSA 193:16 to read as follows:
193:16 Bylaws as to Nonattendance. Districts may make bylaws, not repugnant to law, concerning habitual truants and children between the ages of 6 and 18 years not attending school or who are not participating in an alternative learning plan under RSA 193:1, I[(h)] (b)(8), and to compel the attendance of such children at school; failure to comply with such bylaws shall constitute a violation for each offense.
9 Legislative Youth Advisory Council; Membership. Amend RSA 19-K:2, I-IV to read as follows:
I. The president of the senate shall appoint the following 7 members:
(a) Three youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) Three youths who are residents of this state and who are students at postsecondary education institutions located in the state.
(c) One member of the senate.
II. The speaker of the house of representatives shall appoint the following 8 members:
(a) Four youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) Three youths who are residents of this state and who are students at postsecondary education institutions located in the state.
(c) One member of the house of representatives.
III. The governor shall appoint the following 3 members:
(a) Two youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) One youth who is a resident of this state and who is a student at a postsecondary education institution located in the state.
IV. The secretary of state shall appoint the following 3 members:
(a) Two youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) One youth who is a resident of this state and who is a student at a postsecondary education institution located in the state.
10 Special Education; Advisory Committee. Amend RSA 186-C:3-b, II(p) to read as follows:
(p) One individual representing children with disabilities who are [home-schooled] in a parent-directed instruction program as specified in RSA 193:1, I, appointed by the governor.
11 Granite State Scholars Program; Scholar Designation. Amend RSA 188-D:39, II to read as follows:
II. The state board of education shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to establishing the granite state scholar designation in high schools that do not calculate class rank, in non-accredited high schools, and for [home schooled] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I.
12 Statewide Education Improvement and Assessment Program; Assessment Required. Amend RSA 193-C:6 to read as follows:
193-C:6 Assessment Required. Each year, a statewide assessment shall be administered in all school districts in the state in grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high school. All public school students in the designated grades shall participate in the assessment, unless such student is exempted, or provided that the commissioner of the department of education may, through an agreement with another state when such state and New Hampshire are parties to an interstate agreement, allow pupils to participate in that state's assessment program as an alternative to the assessment required under this chapter. [Home educated students] Students in a parent-directed instruction program may contact their local school districts if they wish to participate in the statewide assessment. Private schools may contact the department of education to participate in the statewide assessment.
13 Safe School Zones; Definitions. Amend RSA 193-D:1, III to read as follows:
III. “School” means any public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school in New Hampshire. It shall not include [home schools under RSA 193-A] a personal residence or other space used to conduct a parent-directed instruction program pursuant to RSA 193:1, I.
14 Chartered Public Schools; Establishment and Application. Amend RSA 194-B:3, VIII to read as follows:
VIII. [Home education programs established pursuant to RSA 193-A] A parent-directed instruction program as specified in RSA 193:1, I shall not be eligible to be a chartered public school.
15 School Administrative Units; Superintendent Services. Amend RSA 194-C:4, II(d) to read as follows:
(d) Compliance with laws, regulations, and rules regarding special education, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, [home education,] minimum standards, student records, sexual harassment, and other matters as may from time to time occur.
16 Cooperative School Districts; Procedure for Formation. Amend RSA 195:18, III(e) to read as follows:
(e) The method of apportioning the operating expenses of the cooperative school district among the several preexisting districts and the time and manner of payment of such shares. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
17 Cooperative School Districts; Procedure for Formation. Amend RSA 195:18, III(g) to read as follows:
(g) The method of apportioning the capital expenses of the cooperative school district among the several preexisting districts, which need not be the same as the method for apportioning operating expenses, and the time and manner of payment of such shares. Capital expenses shall include the costs of acquiring land and buildings for school purposes, including property owned by a preexisting district; the construction, furnishing and equipping of school buildings and facilities; and the payment of the principal and interest of any indebtedness which is incurred to pay for the same or which is assumed by the cooperative school district. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II,] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
18 Costs of Capital Outlay and Operation. Amend RSA 195:7, II to read as follows:
II. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II,] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
19 Repeal. The following law is repealed:
I. RSA 193-A, relative to home education programs.
20 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Quotes of the Day “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father." Thomas Jefferson
Education is a privilege and not a right. It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal. Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384.
Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance.
The following information came from the NH Parents First website.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Amendment to HB 595
Amend the bill by replacing it in its entirety with the following:
AN ACT amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes.
SPONSORS: Rep. L. Jones, Straf 1; Rep. Manuse, Rock 5; Rep. Cohn, Merr 6; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. C. Vita, Straf 3; Rep. Accornero, Belk 4; Rep. Avard, Hills 20; Rep. S. Palmer, Hills 6; Rep. Simpson, Belk 1; Sen. White, Dist 9; Sen. Forsythe, Dist 4; Sen. Luther, Dist 12
COMMITTEE: Education
ANALYSIS
This bill:
I. Repeals the home education statute.
II. Permits parent-directed instruction programs.
III. Asserts that it is the natural right of a parent to determine and direct the instruction of his or her child and limits the involvement of the state in parent-directed instruction programs only to cases in which there is probable cause to believe that a parent is not instructing his or her child.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0755
04/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Statement of Purpose. It is the natural right and duty of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children for their education. The general court acknowledges that the primary and natural instructors of a child are his or her parents, and the general court guarantees the right and duty of parents to provide for the instruction of their children. Parents shall be free to provide this instruction in the manner and at the location of their choosing, including in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognized or established by their resident school district or by the state or in other places where instruction can be given.
2 Child Protection Act; Definitions. Amend RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) to read as follows:
(b) Who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, [education as required by law,] or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, when it is established that his health has suffered or is very likely to suffer serious impairment; and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of the parents, guardian or custodian; or
3 Truant Officers; Duties. Amend RSA 189:36, I to read as follows:
I. Truant officers shall, when directed by the school board, enforce the laws and regulations relating to truants and children between the ages of 6 and 18 years not attending school or who are not participating in an alternative learning plan under RSA 193:1, I[(h)] (b)(8); and the laws relating to the attendance at school of children between the ages of 6 and 18 years; and shall have authority without a warrant to take and place in school any children found employed contrary to the laws relating to the employment of children, or violating the laws relating to the compulsory attendance at school of children under the age of 18 years, and the laws relating to child labor. No [home school pupil] child in a parent-directed instruction program nor any person between the ages of 6 and 18 who meets any of the requirements of RSA 193:1, I[(c)-(h)] (b)(2)-(8) shall be deemed a truant.
4 School Attendance; Duty of Parents. Amend the section heading of RSA 193:1 and RSA 193:1, I to read as follows:
193:1 Rights and Duties of [Parent] Parents; Compulsory Attendance by Pupil.
I. It is the natural right of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children. A parent of any child at least 6 years of age and under 18 years of age:
(a) Shall instruct such child or cause such child to be instructed as determined by the parent; or
(b) Shall cause such child to attend the public school to which the child is assigned in the child’s resident district. Such child shall attend the public school to which the child is assigned full time when such school is in session unless:
(1) The child is receiving parent-directed instruction and is therefore exempt from this requirement;
(A) Notification (optional). A parent may notify the superintendent of his or her resident school district or the principal of a nonpublic school of his or her decision to involve his or her child in a parent-directed instruction program pursuant to this section. Such notification shall not be required of a parent, and failure to send such notification shall not be considered probable cause under RSA 193:1(I-a).
(B) A parent who chooses to notify the superintendent of the resident school district or the principle of a nonpublic school under RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(A) may submit such notification within 14 days of the date the child is withdrawn from a public or nonpublic school, or moves into the resident school district, or reaches compulsory attendance age pursuant to this section. Notification may include the name, address, and age of each child whose education is being personally directed by the parent pursuant to this chapter. A parent may also send such notification if he or she ends a parent-directed instruction program for any period of time and then subsequently resumes such a program. A parent may choose to enroll a child previously involved in a parent-directed instruction program in a public or private school at any time that any other child may be enrolled.
(C) The superintendent of the resident school district or the principle of a nonpublic school receiving notification pursuant to RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(A) and to RSA 193:1(I)(b)(1)(B) shall provide written acknowledgment of the notification within 14 days of receipt of the notification.
(D) Privacy. Records or information maintained by the superintendent of the resident school district or the principal of a nonpublic school under this chapter shall not be public records pursuant to RSA 91-A and shall not be released to any person or agency without the express written consent of the parent.
[(a)] (2) The child is attending a New Hampshire public school outside the district to which the child is assigned or an approved New Hampshire private school for the same time;
[(b) The child is receiving home education pursuant to RSA 193-A and is therefore exempt from this requirement;
(c)] (3) The relevant school district superintendent has excused a child from attendance because the child is physically or mentally unable to attend school, or has been temporarily excused upon the request of the parent for purposes agreed upon by the school authorities and the parent. Such excused absences shall not be permitted if they cause a serious adverse effect upon the student’s educational progress. Students excused for such temporary absences may be claimed as full-time pupils for purposes of calculating state aid under RSA 186-C:18 and adequate education grants under RSA 198:41;
[(d)] (4) The child is attending a public or private school located in another state which has been approved by the state education agency of the state in which the school is located;
[(e)] (5) The pupil has been exempted from attendance pursuant to RSA 193:5;
[(f)] (6) The pupil has successfully completed all requirements for graduation and the school district is prepared to issue a diploma or the pupil has successfully achieved the equivalent of a high school diploma by [either:
(1)] obtaining a GED certificate[; or
(2) Documenting the completion of a home school program at the high school level by submitting a certificate or letter to the department of education];
[(g)] (7) The pupil has been accepted into an accredited postsecondary education program; or
[(h)] (8) The pupil obtains a waiver from the superintendent, which shall only be granted upon proof that the pupil is 16 years of age or older and has an alternative learning plan for obtaining either a high school diploma or its equivalent.
[(1)] (A) Alternative learning plans shall include age-appropriate academic rigor and the flexibility to incorporate the pupil’s interests and manner of learning. These plans may include, but are not limited to, such components or combination of components of extended learning opportunities as independent study, private instruction, performing groups, internships, community service, apprenticeships, and on-line courses.
[(2)] (B) Alternative learning plans shall be developed, and amended if necessary, in consultation with the pupil, a school guidance counselor, the school principal and at least one parent or guardian of the pupil, and submitted to the school district superintendent for approval.
[(3)] (C) If the superintendent does not approve the alternative learning plan, the parent or guardian of the pupil may appeal such decision to the local school board. A parent or guardian may appeal the decision of the local school board to the state board of education consistent with the provisions of RSA 21-N:11, III.
5 Compulsory School Attendance; Definitions. Amend RSA 193:1, III to read as follows:
III. In this section[,]:
(a) “Child” means a child or children of compulsory attendance age who is a resident of New Hampshire.
(b) “Parent” means a parent, guardian, or person having legal custody of a child.
(c) “Parent-directed instruction” means instruction determined and directed by the parent or guardian of a child who is of compulsory school age. Such instruction may also be referred to as “homeschooling.”
6 New Paragraph; School Attendance; Limitations on State, County and Municipal Action. Amend RSA 193:1 by inserting after paragraph 1 the following new paragraph:
I-a. Under no circumstances shall the neglect provisions of RSA 169-C and RSA 169-D apply to a parent involved in parent-directed instruction. Instead, only the following civil procedure shall apply to a parent involved in parent-directed instruction:
(a) Original jurisdiction of any action brought against a parent engaged in parent-directed instruction pursuant to this chapter shall be in the Superior Court in the county of the parent's residence.
(b) The state, a county or any local jurisdiction shall not interfere with the natural right of a parent to instruct his or her child unless the acting jurisdiction has probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed.
(c) If there is probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed, a local jurisdiction may investigate, after prior notice to the parent, to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the parent. The Division of Children, Youth and Family Services shall not investigate any case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed. No other state agency shall investigate any case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed. Not more than one jurisdiction shall ever investigate a case of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed.
(d) A local jurisdiction shall only proceed against a parent in accordance with the Constitutional provisions for due process and a fair trial, during which the parent shall retain the presumption of innocence.
(e) A local jurisdiction shall not compel a parent to submit evidence to prove his or her innocence, nor shall the local jurisdiction presume such parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed based on the parent's failure to submit such evidence.
(f) In any action relating to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program, no finding or opinion that a parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed shall issue except upon evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
(g) A parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program who has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed may be found guilty only of a civil violation. Under no circumstances shall the state, a county, a local jurisdiction, or any other government official, including but not limited to a court, remove a child from a parent's custody based on an allegation or finding of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed or for any other allegation or finding pertaining to a parent-directed instruction program. Only after the procedure in this section has been followed, and a court has found by evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in three separate court proceedings, that a parent has failed to instruct the child or failed to cause the child to be instructed, may the court, as of the third court proceeding, order the child to be returned to a public or nonpublic school, as shall be determined by the parent.
(h) No state agency or local jurisdiction shall have authority to write or enforce rules relative to parent-directed instruction programs.
7 School Attendance; Access to Public School Programs. Amend RSA 193:1-c to read as follows:
193:1-c Access to Public School Programs by Pupils in Nonpublic or [Home Educated Pupils] Parent-Directed Instruction Programs.
I. Pupils in nonpublic or [home educated pupils] parent-directed instruction programs shall have access to curricular courses and cocurricular programs offered by the school district in which the pupil resides. The local school board may adopt a policy regulating participation in curricular courses and cocurricular programs, provided that such policy shall not be more restrictive for [non-public or home educated pupils] pupils in a nonpublic or parent-directed instruction program than the policy governing the school district’s resident pupils. In this section, “cocurricular” shall include those activities which are designed to supplement and enrich regular academic programs of study, provide opportunities for social development, and encourage participation in clubs, athletics, performing groups, and service to school and community. For purposes of allowing access as described in this section, a [“home educated pupil”] pupil in a parent-directed instruction program shall not include any pupil who has graduated from a high school level program [of home education,] or its equivalent, or has attained the age of 21.
II. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a parent to establish a [home education] parent-directed instruction program which exceeds the provisions of RSA 193:1.
8 School Attendance; Bylaws as to Nonattendance. Amend RSA 193:16 to read as follows:
193:16 Bylaws as to Nonattendance. Districts may make bylaws, not repugnant to law, concerning habitual truants and children between the ages of 6 and 18 years not attending school or who are not participating in an alternative learning plan under RSA 193:1, I[(h)] (b)(8), and to compel the attendance of such children at school; failure to comply with such bylaws shall constitute a violation for each offense.
9 Legislative Youth Advisory Council; Membership. Amend RSA 19-K:2, I-IV to read as follows:
I. The president of the senate shall appoint the following 7 members:
(a) Three youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) Three youths who are residents of this state and who are students at postsecondary education institutions located in the state.
(c) One member of the senate.
II. The speaker of the house of representatives shall appoint the following 8 members:
(a) Four youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) Three youths who are residents of this state and who are students at postsecondary education institutions located in the state.
(c) One member of the house of representatives.
III. The governor shall appoint the following 3 members:
(a) Two youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) One youth who is a resident of this state and who is a student at a postsecondary education institution located in the state.
IV. The secretary of state shall appoint the following 3 members:
(a) Two youths who are students in secondary schools, who are [home school] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I, or who are enrolled in programs that lead to a secondary school diploma, certificate of attendance, or general equivalency diploma.
(b) One youth who is a resident of this state and who is a student at a postsecondary education institution located in the state.
10 Special Education; Advisory Committee. Amend RSA 186-C:3-b, II(p) to read as follows:
(p) One individual representing children with disabilities who are [home-schooled] in a parent-directed instruction program as specified in RSA 193:1, I, appointed by the governor.
11 Granite State Scholars Program; Scholar Designation. Amend RSA 188-D:39, II to read as follows:
II. The state board of education shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to establishing the granite state scholar designation in high schools that do not calculate class rank, in non-accredited high schools, and for [home schooled] students in a parent-directed instruction program as provided in RSA 193:1, I.
12 Statewide Education Improvement and Assessment Program; Assessment Required. Amend RSA 193-C:6 to read as follows:
193-C:6 Assessment Required. Each year, a statewide assessment shall be administered in all school districts in the state in grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high school. All public school students in the designated grades shall participate in the assessment, unless such student is exempted, or provided that the commissioner of the department of education may, through an agreement with another state when such state and New Hampshire are parties to an interstate agreement, allow pupils to participate in that state's assessment program as an alternative to the assessment required under this chapter. [Home educated students] Students in a parent-directed instruction program may contact their local school districts if they wish to participate in the statewide assessment. Private schools may contact the department of education to participate in the statewide assessment.
13 Safe School Zones; Definitions. Amend RSA 193-D:1, III to read as follows:
III. “School” means any public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school in New Hampshire. It shall not include [home schools under RSA 193-A] a personal residence or other space used to conduct a parent-directed instruction program pursuant to RSA 193:1, I.
14 Chartered Public Schools; Establishment and Application. Amend RSA 194-B:3, VIII to read as follows:
VIII. [Home education programs established pursuant to RSA 193-A] A parent-directed instruction program as specified in RSA 193:1, I shall not be eligible to be a chartered public school.
15 School Administrative Units; Superintendent Services. Amend RSA 194-C:4, II(d) to read as follows:
(d) Compliance with laws, regulations, and rules regarding special education, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, [home education,] minimum standards, student records, sexual harassment, and other matters as may from time to time occur.
16 Cooperative School Districts; Procedure for Formation. Amend RSA 195:18, III(e) to read as follows:
(e) The method of apportioning the operating expenses of the cooperative school district among the several preexisting districts and the time and manner of payment of such shares. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
17 Cooperative School Districts; Procedure for Formation. Amend RSA 195:18, III(g) to read as follows:
(g) The method of apportioning the capital expenses of the cooperative school district among the several preexisting districts, which need not be the same as the method for apportioning operating expenses, and the time and manner of payment of such shares. Capital expenses shall include the costs of acquiring land and buildings for school purposes, including property owned by a preexisting district; the construction, furnishing and equipping of school buildings and facilities; and the payment of the principal and interest of any indebtedness which is incurred to pay for the same or which is assumed by the cooperative school district. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II,] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
18 Costs of Capital Outlay and Operation. Amend RSA 195:7, II to read as follows:
II. [Home education pupils] Students in a parent-directed instruction program who do not receive services from the cooperative school district[, except an evaluation pursuant to RSA 193-A:6, II,] shall not be included in the average daily membership relative to apportionment formulas.
19 Repeal. The following law is repealed:
I. RSA 193-A, relative to home education programs.
20 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Public Sector Unions Should not Exist
Our Founders would have never approved of public sector unions. Any History teacher actually worth the weight of their diploma would know this and not be a part of a Teachers' Union. Any Math Teacher actually worth the weight of their diploma would know that the public education system and their pension system is unsustainable and would not be part of the union.
Quote of the Day - "A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom" -- F. A. Hayek, author of "The Road to Serfdom."
No teacher should be required to pay one cent toward a union, unions do not recognize individuals, unions are about group think.
Take a look at some of the signs teachers were carrying in Madison. Should these people be educating future leaders? I think not.
The following piece appears on American Thinker.com.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
February 20, 2011
End Public Sector Unions...Period
By C. Edmund Wright
It's about time. I've been waiting for this debate to mature for 15 years.
The battles in Wisconsin and New Jersey over public sector union benefits are merely financial precursors to a much bigger ideological war that has been on the horizon now for years, if not decades. When you acknowledge the coming battle, you realize that Governors Walker and Christie -- courageously as they are behaving -- are only nibbling at the edges of the real issue.
And the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed to exist. Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the equation, the answer is a resounding no. And the foundational reason is simple. There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Well let's see what went wrong: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago, New York State, New York City, Wisconsin...on and on I could go including almost every city and state where government workers are unionized.
Oh, and have you seen pictures of Detroit lately?
The problem is that our country has been lulled to sleep over decades of hearing that government workers are dedicated and low paid public servants who trade good pay for security. And every time a union pay debate came up, it seemed like only cops and fire fighters and teachers were mentioned. No one stopped to think that most government workers are actually bureaucratic charmers like those we see at the DMV and other government offices -- and not "heroic teachers" or crime fighters.
But as long as the private sector was humming along, there was no reason for reality to permeate that myth in most peoples' minds. But the reality is that government workers long ago passed private sector workers in pay and benefits, and now the compensation is more like 150% or even double, factoring in all the benefits, including more vacation days than private sector workers enjoy. And of course, the inestimable value of job security remains intact and strengthened -- while all of us in the private sector deal daily with the risk-reward constraints of reality that are only getting riskier.
And along the way -- with a public school teacher-educated population that understands virtually nothing about economics -- the sheer idiocy of the concept of government unions escaped almost everybody. It's almost as if the union teachers were lying to their students about economics on purpose.
Consider: Unions exist primarily for the function of collective bargaining, where the union bosses will negotiate on behalf of all the workers with the management of a company over pay and benefits and other conditions. This built-in adversarial relationship along with the realities of a limited resource -- known as operating revenues -- do a pretty good job for the most part of keeping contracts in line.
The union bosses represent the workers. Management represents everybody else, including the stockholders, vendors, customers and potential customers of the company. In other words, management represents everyone whose interests are served by keeping payroll costs down.
In the case of a government workforce, those whose interests are served by keeping costs down would include all who pay taxes and fees to said government. In other words, the universe of folks represented by management is far larger than that represented by the union. This inherent tension is the invisible hand of reality that keeps collective bargaining in line.
However, public sector "collective bargaining" is a bad joke, given that there are only chairs on one side of the bargaining table. The bigger universe of interested parties have zero representation in the process. There is no natural force working to keep costs in line.
Moreover, quite often the very politicians who are "negotiating" with the public unions are politicians who have been financed by those same unions. At least Bernie Madoff ripped off his clients with some panache. No such style is even required in a public sector union negotiation when the folks in charge are bought and paid for Democrats.
Under any circumstances and in any economy, it is simply a matter of time before these costs reach a tipping point. We are at that time. There is simply no more money to give to these public sector unions -- period.
And that is why we are seeing what we are seeing in Madison this week and it is why we have seen the emergence of Chris Christie as a national phenomenon. And I welcome it. Things are finally so bad -- that they are good. And by good, I mean that folks now cannot help but pay attention to the issue of public sector unions.
I submit that the very existence of these unions has only been allowed to happen because it's the kind of issue an electorate is never forced to confront -- until they are forced to confront it. And now they are. There is, as Charles Krauthammer said, a bit of an earthquake in the country. People are sensing that the nation is spinning off a cliff.
And of course it is, and public sector unions are one huge reason why. This conclusion is inescapable. And when you understand that, you understand that public sector unions cannot be allowed to exist. If they are, we will never turn back from the cliff.
Quote of the Day - "A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom" -- F. A. Hayek, author of "The Road to Serfdom."
No teacher should be required to pay one cent toward a union, unions do not recognize individuals, unions are about group think.
Take a look at some of the signs teachers were carrying in Madison. Should these people be educating future leaders? I think not.
The following piece appears on American Thinker.com.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
February 20, 2011
End Public Sector Unions...Period
By C. Edmund Wright
It's about time. I've been waiting for this debate to mature for 15 years.
The battles in Wisconsin and New Jersey over public sector union benefits are merely financial precursors to a much bigger ideological war that has been on the horizon now for years, if not decades. When you acknowledge the coming battle, you realize that Governors Walker and Christie -- courageously as they are behaving -- are only nibbling at the edges of the real issue.
And the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed to exist. Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the equation, the answer is a resounding no. And the foundational reason is simple. There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Well let's see what went wrong: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago, New York State, New York City, Wisconsin...on and on I could go including almost every city and state where government workers are unionized.
Oh, and have you seen pictures of Detroit lately?
The problem is that our country has been lulled to sleep over decades of hearing that government workers are dedicated and low paid public servants who trade good pay for security. And every time a union pay debate came up, it seemed like only cops and fire fighters and teachers were mentioned. No one stopped to think that most government workers are actually bureaucratic charmers like those we see at the DMV and other government offices -- and not "heroic teachers" or crime fighters.
But as long as the private sector was humming along, there was no reason for reality to permeate that myth in most peoples' minds. But the reality is that government workers long ago passed private sector workers in pay and benefits, and now the compensation is more like 150% or even double, factoring in all the benefits, including more vacation days than private sector workers enjoy. And of course, the inestimable value of job security remains intact and strengthened -- while all of us in the private sector deal daily with the risk-reward constraints of reality that are only getting riskier.
And along the way -- with a public school teacher-educated population that understands virtually nothing about economics -- the sheer idiocy of the concept of government unions escaped almost everybody. It's almost as if the union teachers were lying to their students about economics on purpose.
Consider: Unions exist primarily for the function of collective bargaining, where the union bosses will negotiate on behalf of all the workers with the management of a company over pay and benefits and other conditions. This built-in adversarial relationship along with the realities of a limited resource -- known as operating revenues -- do a pretty good job for the most part of keeping contracts in line.
The union bosses represent the workers. Management represents everybody else, including the stockholders, vendors, customers and potential customers of the company. In other words, management represents everyone whose interests are served by keeping payroll costs down.
In the case of a government workforce, those whose interests are served by keeping costs down would include all who pay taxes and fees to said government. In other words, the universe of folks represented by management is far larger than that represented by the union. This inherent tension is the invisible hand of reality that keeps collective bargaining in line.
However, public sector "collective bargaining" is a bad joke, given that there are only chairs on one side of the bargaining table. The bigger universe of interested parties have zero representation in the process. There is no natural force working to keep costs in line.
Moreover, quite often the very politicians who are "negotiating" with the public unions are politicians who have been financed by those same unions. At least Bernie Madoff ripped off his clients with some panache. No such style is even required in a public sector union negotiation when the folks in charge are bought and paid for Democrats.
Under any circumstances and in any economy, it is simply a matter of time before these costs reach a tipping point. We are at that time. There is simply no more money to give to these public sector unions -- period.
And that is why we are seeing what we are seeing in Madison this week and it is why we have seen the emergence of Chris Christie as a national phenomenon. And I welcome it. Things are finally so bad -- that they are good. And by good, I mean that folks now cannot help but pay attention to the issue of public sector unions.
I submit that the very existence of these unions has only been allowed to happen because it's the kind of issue an electorate is never forced to confront -- until they are forced to confront it. And now they are. There is, as Charles Krauthammer said, a bit of an earthquake in the country. People are sensing that the nation is spinning off a cliff.
And of course it is, and public sector unions are one huge reason why. This conclusion is inescapable. And when you understand that, you understand that public sector unions cannot be allowed to exist. If they are, we will never turn back from the cliff.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Where is the Fight New Hampshire Homeschoolers?
Homeschoolers in Illinois are putting up a fight in Illinois against notification, how come New Hampshire Homeschoolers are not putting up a fight? Could it be because for 20 years people like Chris Hamilton, Mary Faiella, CHeNH and HSLDA have fought for oppressive homeschooling laws and against freedom?
The following story appears in the Beacon News. Be sure to visit the Beacon News site to see the pictures and extras associated with the story.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Home school families fight state registration
By Jenette Sturges jsturges@stmedianetwork.com Feb 19, 2011
Onlookers said it was a crowded room, and not just by Illinois Senate committee hearing standards.
“My husband wasn’t even able to get into the room there were so many people there,” said Keturah Mindock, the full-time mother and educator of two in Oswego.
About 4,000 parents and their children flocked to Springfield Tuesday afternoon to oppose Senate Bill 136, a bill that would require Illinois’ estimated 50,000 home-schooled students to register with the State Board of Education for the first time.
“Basically it’s just government intrusion into our lives,” said Priscilla Kenney, an Aurora mother with four children, all home-schooled. “The system isn’t broken, so why try to institute unnecessary government watch-dogging?”
State Sen. Edward Maloney, D-Chicago, said he introduced legislation requiring registration after meeting an acquaintance who home-schooled and becoming concerned about a lack of oversight.
“There are virtually no rules in Illinois, except they’re asked to teach a curriculum of math, English, science and social studies. There’s no periodic testing, no qualifications, no accounting at all,” Maloney said.
And that’s true. Illinois has some of the most relaxed guidelines in the country for home schooling. So long as children between 7 and 17 years old are being taught the same subjects they would learn in school, in English, they are in compliance with the law. Illinois parents are not required to notify the state that they are home-schooling, unless they are brought to court for truancy.
Other states are far more stringent. In heavily regulated states like New York and Pennsylvania laws vary, but they can include curriculum approval, teacher qualification for parents and home visits by state officials.
The majority of states fall somewhere in between: parents have to notify or register with the state and may have to submit test scores or other proof that students are progressing.
But home school parents around the Fox Valley said they have plenty of proof.
Proof like admission to one of the country’s most prestigious universities: Kenney’s oldest daughter, 20-year-old Fiona McCoy, attends MIT. Her three high-school-age daughters participate on a math team of home-schoolers that has taken home the state title, competing against conventional small schools, for the past four years.
“If you look at all the statistics from testing and college, home-schoolers are doing an awesome job of teaching their kids,” Kenney said.
Or take, for example, Mindock, whose daughter, Lacey, will be 7 in April. “She already reads at a sixth-grade level,” said Mindock. “Each of my children gets one-on-one attention. I don’t have to worry about 30 other kids and what they’re doing.”
The individualized education home-schoolers get also means a lot more flexibility, from curriculum to scheduling to discipline.
Gina and Armando Regalado have two children, and both are sharing the responsibility for home-schooling their 6-year-old daughter.
“He (Armando) focuses more on the language arts and theology,” said Gina. “His degree is in theology and they’re more artists. I’m more math and science.”
The ability to teach their daughter on a flexible schedule fits their lifestyle and allows them more family time, she said. Gina works in child care during the day, and her husband works as the Paul McCartney in The Cavern Beat, a Beatles cover band. But both parents used to teach high school, and that’s what really drove them to teach their children at home.
“Knowing kids in public high school, they were not really concerned about their educations, and their parents weren’t always either,” said Gina. “Ask any teacher: the parents make or break the student’s ability to learn.”
Political intrusion?
Maloney is concerned more about those students who might be falling through the cracks. He is chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee and a former administrator at both Brother Rice High School in Chicago and Oak Lawn Community High School.
“My concern isn’t with those who are doing a conscientious job, but it’s with those who aren’t. Ultimately, the state is responsible for people’s education, so to speak. If nothing is going on, they ought to know about that,” Maloney said. “I fail to see why this is such an imposition.”
Conservatives in the state senate largely agreed that the matter of education lies ultimately with parents.
“I’m a huge proponent of public education, especially locally, but I’m also a proponent of parental authority,” said state Sen. Chris Lauzen, an Aurora Republican who said the home-schooling parents from his district he talked to were relieved to hear he opposed the bill. “I am certainly opposed to state government having more control ... within our families. In the end, these are our families’ children, rather than the government’s children.”
State Sen. Linda Holmes said she also met with constituents Tuesday, but hadn’t come to any conclusions on home schooling.
“When they go on to college, home school students excel against their counterparts, but those are the kids who go on to college,” said Holmes, an Aurora Democrat. “Do we have any that don’t? How do they fare? It does pique my curiosity to want to know, if we did have a way of measuring home school kids, how well prepared they go out into world.”
Holmes said traditional schools are also a place for intervention when it’s needed. A teacher might notice, for instance, when a student is being abused.
“They’re (home school parents) doing a wonderful job and are dedicated,” she said. “I think the concern lies in: How do we address the 2 or 3 percent who are not?”
And Holmes pointed out that while registration is voluntary, there’s simply no way to know how many students are learning at home, or at the park district, the Morton Arboretum, their church, College of DuPage, and all of the other places home school parents take their students for extra classes, enrichment and socialization.
“I guess I would say the best way to explain it is: I understand the concern, but the problem is that senators tend to run with a lot of things,” said Regalado. “What they say it’s for ends up being more and more intrusive.”
Since the outpouring of opposition Tuesday in Springfield, Maloney has tabled the bill. But home-schooling families said they’re still watching carefully, expecting the registration bill to be reworded and brought back.
“I know it’s going to come back because I know there’s always going to be someone concerned about it because their family member or whoever chose a different path,” said Regalado. “I understand the concern, but I think it’s really unfounded.”
The following story appears in the Beacon News. Be sure to visit the Beacon News site to see the pictures and extras associated with the story.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Home school families fight state registration
By Jenette Sturges jsturges@stmedianetwork.com Feb 19, 2011
Onlookers said it was a crowded room, and not just by Illinois Senate committee hearing standards.
“My husband wasn’t even able to get into the room there were so many people there,” said Keturah Mindock, the full-time mother and educator of two in Oswego.
About 4,000 parents and their children flocked to Springfield Tuesday afternoon to oppose Senate Bill 136, a bill that would require Illinois’ estimated 50,000 home-schooled students to register with the State Board of Education for the first time.
“Basically it’s just government intrusion into our lives,” said Priscilla Kenney, an Aurora mother with four children, all home-schooled. “The system isn’t broken, so why try to institute unnecessary government watch-dogging?”
State Sen. Edward Maloney, D-Chicago, said he introduced legislation requiring registration after meeting an acquaintance who home-schooled and becoming concerned about a lack of oversight.
“There are virtually no rules in Illinois, except they’re asked to teach a curriculum of math, English, science and social studies. There’s no periodic testing, no qualifications, no accounting at all,” Maloney said.
And that’s true. Illinois has some of the most relaxed guidelines in the country for home schooling. So long as children between 7 and 17 years old are being taught the same subjects they would learn in school, in English, they are in compliance with the law. Illinois parents are not required to notify the state that they are home-schooling, unless they are brought to court for truancy.
Other states are far more stringent. In heavily regulated states like New York and Pennsylvania laws vary, but they can include curriculum approval, teacher qualification for parents and home visits by state officials.
The majority of states fall somewhere in between: parents have to notify or register with the state and may have to submit test scores or other proof that students are progressing.
But home school parents around the Fox Valley said they have plenty of proof.
Proof like admission to one of the country’s most prestigious universities: Kenney’s oldest daughter, 20-year-old Fiona McCoy, attends MIT. Her three high-school-age daughters participate on a math team of home-schoolers that has taken home the state title, competing against conventional small schools, for the past four years.
“If you look at all the statistics from testing and college, home-schoolers are doing an awesome job of teaching their kids,” Kenney said.
Or take, for example, Mindock, whose daughter, Lacey, will be 7 in April. “She already reads at a sixth-grade level,” said Mindock. “Each of my children gets one-on-one attention. I don’t have to worry about 30 other kids and what they’re doing.”
The individualized education home-schoolers get also means a lot more flexibility, from curriculum to scheduling to discipline.
Gina and Armando Regalado have two children, and both are sharing the responsibility for home-schooling their 6-year-old daughter.
“He (Armando) focuses more on the language arts and theology,” said Gina. “His degree is in theology and they’re more artists. I’m more math and science.”
The ability to teach their daughter on a flexible schedule fits their lifestyle and allows them more family time, she said. Gina works in child care during the day, and her husband works as the Paul McCartney in The Cavern Beat, a Beatles cover band. But both parents used to teach high school, and that’s what really drove them to teach their children at home.
“Knowing kids in public high school, they were not really concerned about their educations, and their parents weren’t always either,” said Gina. “Ask any teacher: the parents make or break the student’s ability to learn.”
Political intrusion?
Maloney is concerned more about those students who might be falling through the cracks. He is chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee and a former administrator at both Brother Rice High School in Chicago and Oak Lawn Community High School.
“My concern isn’t with those who are doing a conscientious job, but it’s with those who aren’t. Ultimately, the state is responsible for people’s education, so to speak. If nothing is going on, they ought to know about that,” Maloney said. “I fail to see why this is such an imposition.”
Conservatives in the state senate largely agreed that the matter of education lies ultimately with parents.
“I’m a huge proponent of public education, especially locally, but I’m also a proponent of parental authority,” said state Sen. Chris Lauzen, an Aurora Republican who said the home-schooling parents from his district he talked to were relieved to hear he opposed the bill. “I am certainly opposed to state government having more control ... within our families. In the end, these are our families’ children, rather than the government’s children.”
State Sen. Linda Holmes said she also met with constituents Tuesday, but hadn’t come to any conclusions on home schooling.
“When they go on to college, home school students excel against their counterparts, but those are the kids who go on to college,” said Holmes, an Aurora Democrat. “Do we have any that don’t? How do they fare? It does pique my curiosity to want to know, if we did have a way of measuring home school kids, how well prepared they go out into world.”
Holmes said traditional schools are also a place for intervention when it’s needed. A teacher might notice, for instance, when a student is being abused.
“They’re (home school parents) doing a wonderful job and are dedicated,” she said. “I think the concern lies in: How do we address the 2 or 3 percent who are not?”
And Holmes pointed out that while registration is voluntary, there’s simply no way to know how many students are learning at home, or at the park district, the Morton Arboretum, their church, College of DuPage, and all of the other places home school parents take their students for extra classes, enrichment and socialization.
“I guess I would say the best way to explain it is: I understand the concern, but the problem is that senators tend to run with a lot of things,” said Regalado. “What they say it’s for ends up being more and more intrusive.”
Since the outpouring of opposition Tuesday in Springfield, Maloney has tabled the bill. But home-schooling families said they’re still watching carefully, expecting the registration bill to be reworded and brought back.
“I know it’s going to come back because I know there’s always going to be someone concerned about it because their family member or whoever chose a different path,” said Regalado. “I understand the concern, but I think it’s really unfounded.”
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Anti-homeschooling Freedom Crowd is just not in N.H.
"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom" -- F. A. Hayek, author of "The Road to Serfdom."
I think the reason all homeschoolers in New Hampshire have not fought for freedom is because they really don't know freedom. I believe they also believe what the Statists and Progressives tell them and that is that the State has a compelling interest in Education. The State does not have a compelling interest in education or its outcomes, if they did they would actually do something about the New Hampshire's failing public schools. Tenure serves the interests of teachers not students or educational outcomes. HSLDA and CHeNH have not supported or put forth a homeschooling freedom Bill in New Hampshire, because it does not serve the States interests, their financial interests or their need for power over other's lives.
Illinois currently has homeschooling freedom but will it last. Fight on Illinois homeschoolers because, "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." John Adams
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following piece appears on Big Government.com.
Nanny State Trolls for Homeschooled Children in Illinois
by Julie Schmidt
Recently Illinois Senator Ed Maloney (D) introduced SB136 which would require “the parents or legal guardians of children attending non-public schools, a defined term, or private or parochial schools to annually register their children with the State Board of Education, in conformance with procedures prescribed by the State Board of Education.”
Basically homeschoolers and anyone else who has deemed the public education system a failure would have to register their children with the State, since apparently Senator Maloney believes “that since the State was responsible for the education of our children, the State should know who was being homeschooled,” according to Pastor James McDonald who met with the Senator along with several homeschooling advocates.
I hate to burst the Senator’s progressive utopian bubble, but as Pastor McDonald points out “in the eyes of most home educators, the responsibility to ensure our children receive a competent education belonged to parents, not the State.” I don’t think registering children, like licensing a dog, was exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he envisioned public education.
Jefferson trusted the people closest to the issue to care most for the outcomes. Regarding education he stated in a letter to Joseph Cabell, “But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.”
Hardly a resounding endorsement of the power of the State, which he was extremely wary of, when he stated in the same letter, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” Or even the Illinois Senate.
Jefferson also believed that education was–brace yourself progressives–voluntary. He stated, “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.” So I will give you a moment to consider how he would have viewed compulsory registration. “Appalled” would be kind.
Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute (IFI) applies the “board of education” to our illustrious politicians’ posteriors when she said, “Serious thought should be given to the proper role and limits of our state and federal governments. If the vast majority of home schooling families are educating their children well, IFI doesn’t believe that it is appropriate to penalize them in order to solve the problem of the failures or inadequacies of a minority of home schooling families.”
If you happen to live in Illinois, or even if you don’t, and would like to apply your own board to the backside of this government intrusion, you can find the latest status and who to call at IFI’s website.
I think the reason all homeschoolers in New Hampshire have not fought for freedom is because they really don't know freedom. I believe they also believe what the Statists and Progressives tell them and that is that the State has a compelling interest in Education. The State does not have a compelling interest in education or its outcomes, if they did they would actually do something about the New Hampshire's failing public schools. Tenure serves the interests of teachers not students or educational outcomes. HSLDA and CHeNH have not supported or put forth a homeschooling freedom Bill in New Hampshire, because it does not serve the States interests, their financial interests or their need for power over other's lives.
Illinois currently has homeschooling freedom but will it last. Fight on Illinois homeschoolers because, "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." John Adams
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following piece appears on Big Government.com.
Nanny State Trolls for Homeschooled Children in Illinois
by Julie Schmidt
Recently Illinois Senator Ed Maloney (D) introduced SB136 which would require “the parents or legal guardians of children attending non-public schools, a defined term, or private or parochial schools to annually register their children with the State Board of Education, in conformance with procedures prescribed by the State Board of Education.”
Basically homeschoolers and anyone else who has deemed the public education system a failure would have to register their children with the State, since apparently Senator Maloney believes “that since the State was responsible for the education of our children, the State should know who was being homeschooled,” according to Pastor James McDonald who met with the Senator along with several homeschooling advocates.
I hate to burst the Senator’s progressive utopian bubble, but as Pastor McDonald points out “in the eyes of most home educators, the responsibility to ensure our children receive a competent education belonged to parents, not the State.” I don’t think registering children, like licensing a dog, was exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he envisioned public education.
Jefferson trusted the people closest to the issue to care most for the outcomes. Regarding education he stated in a letter to Joseph Cabell, “But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.”
Hardly a resounding endorsement of the power of the State, which he was extremely wary of, when he stated in the same letter, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” Or even the Illinois Senate.
Jefferson also believed that education was–brace yourself progressives–voluntary. He stated, “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.” So I will give you a moment to consider how he would have viewed compulsory registration. “Appalled” would be kind.
Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute (IFI) applies the “board of education” to our illustrious politicians’ posteriors when she said, “Serious thought should be given to the proper role and limits of our state and federal governments. If the vast majority of home schooling families are educating their children well, IFI doesn’t believe that it is appropriate to penalize them in order to solve the problem of the failures or inadequacies of a minority of home schooling families.”
If you happen to live in Illinois, or even if you don’t, and would like to apply your own board to the backside of this government intrusion, you can find the latest status and who to call at IFI’s website.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Homeschooling Laws in New Hampshire are Tyrannical
These are part of the current homeschooling laws.
Annual evaluations are due by July 1.
Homeschoolers are required to evaluate their children and file the evaluation results annually with their participating agents. Homeschoolers can meet the annual evaluation requirement in one of three ways:
(1) have their children evaluated by a certified teacher, or a teacher currently teaching in a nonpublic school;
(2) test their children using a national student achievement test, or a state student assessment test used by the resident school district. A composite score on either test at or above the fortieth percentile is an acceptable score; or
(3) use any other valid measurement tool that is mutually agreed upon in writing by the parent (or legal guardian) and the participating agent.
If you submit a standardized test score, remember to order your exam in plenty of time to get your composite score back before the July 1 deadline. A list of testing options is available at the NHHC website.
If you submit a portfolio evaluation, please confirm in advance the evaluator’s credentials and availability to review your student’s portfolio this year. If you are seeking an evaluator, visit our evaluators page.
The above laws do nothing to improve the quality of education I provide to my children. The only interests they serve are the interests of the State. If a homeschooled student fails to score above the fortieth percentile they are put on probation. This is not equitable with what happens in the public schools, nor should it be. However, when a child in a public school fails to score above the fortieth percentile they are not forced into a private school or to homeschool they stay in the same failing school, the teacher is retained because she has tenure. Why are homeschoolers treated differently? Tens of thousands of public school students fail to score above 40% every year. Homeschooilng laws are tyrannical and only serve the interests of the State. For the seventh year our feeder school district has failed to make annual yearly progress. The teachers still have their jobs, taxpayers still have to pay for their failure. The above laws do nothing to improve the quality of the education I provide my child, in fact they hinder my child's education because they have absolutely no benefit to my child but to the State. The quality of my children's education will improve greatly when I am finally able to educate my child as I see fit and without people trampling on my rights to do so.
Quote of the Day - “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.” - Thomas Jefferson
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Annual evaluations are due by July 1.
Homeschoolers are required to evaluate their children and file the evaluation results annually with their participating agents. Homeschoolers can meet the annual evaluation requirement in one of three ways:
(1) have their children evaluated by a certified teacher, or a teacher currently teaching in a nonpublic school;
(2) test their children using a national student achievement test, or a state student assessment test used by the resident school district. A composite score on either test at or above the fortieth percentile is an acceptable score; or
(3) use any other valid measurement tool that is mutually agreed upon in writing by the parent (or legal guardian) and the participating agent.
If you submit a standardized test score, remember to order your exam in plenty of time to get your composite score back before the July 1 deadline. A list of testing options is available at the NHHC website.
If you submit a portfolio evaluation, please confirm in advance the evaluator’s credentials and availability to review your student’s portfolio this year. If you are seeking an evaluator, visit our evaluators page.
The above laws do nothing to improve the quality of education I provide to my children. The only interests they serve are the interests of the State. If a homeschooled student fails to score above the fortieth percentile they are put on probation. This is not equitable with what happens in the public schools, nor should it be. However, when a child in a public school fails to score above the fortieth percentile they are not forced into a private school or to homeschool they stay in the same failing school, the teacher is retained because she has tenure. Why are homeschoolers treated differently? Tens of thousands of public school students fail to score above 40% every year. Homeschooilng laws are tyrannical and only serve the interests of the State. For the seventh year our feeder school district has failed to make annual yearly progress. The teachers still have their jobs, taxpayers still have to pay for their failure. The above laws do nothing to improve the quality of the education I provide my child, in fact they hinder my child's education because they have absolutely no benefit to my child but to the State. The quality of my children's education will improve greatly when I am finally able to educate my child as I see fit and without people trampling on my rights to do so.
Quote of the Day - “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.” - Thomas Jefferson
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)