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Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.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.
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Monday, February 21, 2011
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.”
Friday, February 11, 2011
HSLDA and CHeNH
HSLDA appears to continue to fight for their own interests and keep New Hampshire Homeschoolers oppressed by promoting tyrannical homeschooling Bills. Frankly, I am tired of it, what fool buys a membership to HSLDA when it is HSLDA's backing of tyrannical laws that encourages membership into HSLDA in the first place. HSLDA has never put forth a Bill that would let New Hampshire Homeschoolers practice their Constitutional and Natural rights to educate their children as they see fit and in peace. The likelihood of HSLDA interrupting my school year 100%, the likelihood of NH DCYF interrupting my school year .0002. I suggest New Hampshire families boycott HSLDA and CHeNH until they put forth a full homeschooling freedom Bill.
Quote of the Day - "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Testimony for HB 595
The following is the testimony I gave to the House Education Committee regarding HB-595. Frankly, I do not think this legislation goes far enough but it is a step in the correct direction.
Quote of the Day - "A recent MORI poll, commissioned by the Campaign for Learning, found that 90% of adults were favourably inclined towards further learning for themselves.....The bad news is that 75% said they were unhappy and alienated in the school environment and that, therefore, they preferred to learn at home, in the local library, at their workplace - anywhere other than a school-type setting." - Meighan
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Good afternoon, Chairman Balboni and Honorable members of the House Education Committee,
I am writing today to ask you to vote ITL on HB-301 and OTP on HB-595. I would like to see complete homeschooling freedom in New Hampshire because in a free society, the sole purpose of the State is to protect our freedoms. That's all. Nothing more.
Any parent willing to lift the education burden from fellow taxpayers should not be regulated by the State. Parents in 24 states have this right; Live Free Or Die parents should have it as well. I am asking you to pass HB 595 which will move us closer to freedom and away from the current laws that declare parents to be guilty until proven innocent.
There are approximately 200,000 public students statewide. According to the fall 2010 NECAP results 23% of our students in grades 3-8 and 11 failed to demonstrate proficiency in reading, 34% failed to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics and 45% of our students failed to demonstrate proficiency in writing. There are only about 5,000 homeschoolers in New Hampshire; far more public school students fail to achieve proficiency in basic academics than homeschool students. Taxpayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually, yet tens of thousands of students fail to read at grade appropriate level. Frankly, I do not understand the need of some legislators to focus on homeschooling's safely controlled campfire, while public school Rome is burning to the ground.
My children are my responsibility. I have decided that my children shall not be a burden on the rest of society by educating them at home. I have chosen that they not suffer as part of a failing educational system. If I wanted to provide my children a substandard education I would send them to my local public school which has failed to meet Annual Yearly Progress for its seventh year.
I am tired of having to fight for my constitutional right to instruct my children as I see fit. I am tired of fighting organizations that benefit from horrific homeschooling laws designed to fatten their pocketbooks. Frankly, I am tired of the witch hunt against homeschoolers and the nanny state homeschooling laws.
Today this fundamental question comes before to the legislature: Shall the state control parental instruction, or shall parents invoke their historical prerogative to instruct in freedom. Please OTP HB 595.
Best Regards,
Catherine Peschke
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
Ronald Reagan
"Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost." Friedrich Engels, 1847 in the draft of the Manifesto called, "Principles of Communism"
Quote of the Day - "A recent MORI poll, commissioned by the Campaign for Learning, found that 90% of adults were favourably inclined towards further learning for themselves.....The bad news is that 75% said they were unhappy and alienated in the school environment and that, therefore, they preferred to learn at home, in the local library, at their workplace - anywhere other than a school-type setting." - Meighan
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Good afternoon, Chairman Balboni and Honorable members of the House Education Committee,
I am writing today to ask you to vote ITL on HB-301 and OTP on HB-595. I would like to see complete homeschooling freedom in New Hampshire because in a free society, the sole purpose of the State is to protect our freedoms. That's all. Nothing more.
Any parent willing to lift the education burden from fellow taxpayers should not be regulated by the State. Parents in 24 states have this right; Live Free Or Die parents should have it as well. I am asking you to pass HB 595 which will move us closer to freedom and away from the current laws that declare parents to be guilty until proven innocent.
There are approximately 200,000 public students statewide. According to the fall 2010 NECAP results 23% of our students in grades 3-8 and 11 failed to demonstrate proficiency in reading, 34% failed to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics and 45% of our students failed to demonstrate proficiency in writing. There are only about 5,000 homeschoolers in New Hampshire; far more public school students fail to achieve proficiency in basic academics than homeschool students. Taxpayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually, yet tens of thousands of students fail to read at grade appropriate level. Frankly, I do not understand the need of some legislators to focus on homeschooling's safely controlled campfire, while public school Rome is burning to the ground.
My children are my responsibility. I have decided that my children shall not be a burden on the rest of society by educating them at home. I have chosen that they not suffer as part of a failing educational system. If I wanted to provide my children a substandard education I would send them to my local public school which has failed to meet Annual Yearly Progress for its seventh year.
I am tired of having to fight for my constitutional right to instruct my children as I see fit. I am tired of fighting organizations that benefit from horrific homeschooling laws designed to fatten their pocketbooks. Frankly, I am tired of the witch hunt against homeschoolers and the nanny state homeschooling laws.
Today this fundamental question comes before to the legislature: Shall the state control parental instruction, or shall parents invoke their historical prerogative to instruct in freedom. Please OTP HB 595.
Best Regards,
Catherine Peschke
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
Ronald Reagan
"Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost." Friedrich Engels, 1847 in the draft of the Manifesto called, "Principles of Communism"
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Jim's Testimony for HB - 545
The following is Jim's testimony for HB - 545. If New Hampshire is going to get homeschooling freedom we must abolish the HEAC which serves the interest of the DOE and not homeschoolers.
Quote of the Day - "Homeschooling and public schooling are as opposite as two sides of a coin. In a homeschooling environment, the teacher need not be certified, but the child MUST learn. In a public school environment, the teacher MUST be certified, but the child need NOT learn." - Gene Royer
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Good morning,
I am here today to urge this committee to abolish the HEAC by voting OTP on HB545. As a Homeschooling parent and Croydon School Board member, I offer my perspective on how the HEAC's activities are a disservice to homeschoolers, the legislature, and the public at large.
In support of the call to eliminate the HEAC, I offer two fundamental conjectures: 1) The HEAC serves no useful purpose, and 2) The HEAC actively operates against the interests of the very homeschoolers it purports to represent.
In theory, the HEAC provides collective representation for a group of citizens who do not benefit from, dare I say eschew, collectivism itself. To understand why this is irrevocably problematic, contrast this to the model of a public school board.
Communities elect school boards to apply collective representation to the operation of public schools. This model is necessary because public schools operate in a collective manner. Classrooms, schedules, and policies within public schools require a high degree of consistency. This necessitates compromises among the public stakeholders. The school board's job is to listen to the public and align school operation as best as they can, knowing they cannot please everybody.
Homeschooling is fundamentally different because it operates in an individual, not collective fashion. Indeed this very independence and lack of conformity draws many of us to choose homeschooling. Individuality means I may teach my child chemistry when someone else's child learns to draw, and another parent's child leans to write. Thousands of microscopic classrooms have no need for alignment, and thus have no need to develop consensus. When granted their inherent rights, parents have no use for a committee to represent their individual homeschooling preferences. The HEAC thus serves no useful purpose.
Every representative body runs the risk that members will fail to promote the will of their constituents. A common driving force is the motive of self-preservation. HEAC has repeatedly demonstrated this tendency. As homeschoolers across the state call for expanded freedom, such freedom makes the HEAC unnecessary to even the most obstinate observer.
The most destructive element of the HEAC is its ability to provide political cover to lawmakers hostile to the interests of homeschoolers. I have witnessed this on several occasions. When the HEAC or a subset offers support to hostile legislation, they allow homeschool opponents to deny their opposition to homeschooling freedom.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. In this way, the HEAC is the shadow behind which homeschool opponents hide. HEAC becomes the enemy to those it claims to serve.
Please restore transparency legitimate self-representation to homeschoolers by eliminating the HEAC.
Jim Peschke
Quote of the Day - "Homeschooling and public schooling are as opposite as two sides of a coin. In a homeschooling environment, the teacher need not be certified, but the child MUST learn. In a public school environment, the teacher MUST be certified, but the child need NOT learn." - Gene Royer
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Good morning,
I am here today to urge this committee to abolish the HEAC by voting OTP on HB545. As a Homeschooling parent and Croydon School Board member, I offer my perspective on how the HEAC's activities are a disservice to homeschoolers, the legislature, and the public at large.
In support of the call to eliminate the HEAC, I offer two fundamental conjectures: 1) The HEAC serves no useful purpose, and 2) The HEAC actively operates against the interests of the very homeschoolers it purports to represent.
In theory, the HEAC provides collective representation for a group of citizens who do not benefit from, dare I say eschew, collectivism itself. To understand why this is irrevocably problematic, contrast this to the model of a public school board.
Communities elect school boards to apply collective representation to the operation of public schools. This model is necessary because public schools operate in a collective manner. Classrooms, schedules, and policies within public schools require a high degree of consistency. This necessitates compromises among the public stakeholders. The school board's job is to listen to the public and align school operation as best as they can, knowing they cannot please everybody.
Homeschooling is fundamentally different because it operates in an individual, not collective fashion. Indeed this very independence and lack of conformity draws many of us to choose homeschooling. Individuality means I may teach my child chemistry when someone else's child learns to draw, and another parent's child leans to write. Thousands of microscopic classrooms have no need for alignment, and thus have no need to develop consensus. When granted their inherent rights, parents have no use for a committee to represent their individual homeschooling preferences. The HEAC thus serves no useful purpose.
Every representative body runs the risk that members will fail to promote the will of their constituents. A common driving force is the motive of self-preservation. HEAC has repeatedly demonstrated this tendency. As homeschoolers across the state call for expanded freedom, such freedom makes the HEAC unnecessary to even the most obstinate observer.
The most destructive element of the HEAC is its ability to provide political cover to lawmakers hostile to the interests of homeschoolers. I have witnessed this on several occasions. When the HEAC or a subset offers support to hostile legislation, they allow homeschool opponents to deny their opposition to homeschooling freedom.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. In this way, the HEAC is the shadow behind which homeschool opponents hide. HEAC becomes the enemy to those it claims to serve.
Please restore transparency legitimate self-representation to homeschoolers by eliminating the HEAC.
Jim Peschke
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Screwtape and Karl Marx
Screwtape would be so proud of the Department of Education and HSLDA. Karl Marx would be so proud of the HEAC and groups like the CHENH, yep just useful idiots in my book.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
No to HB 301, Yes to HB 595
HB 542 appears to be the only Bill that will give homeschoolers complete homeschooling freedom however, HB 542 appears to be stuck in Committee. I hope that Representative JR Hoell, a homeschooling parent will get HB 542 out of committee. At this point HB 301 supported by HSLDA is a big threat to homeschooling freedom as the article from the Union Leader states below, "House Bill 301 also would repeal the home education law and make it a violation under child welfare laws for parents to "purposely" fail to provide an education for their children."
Homeschooling parents need to come out in full force to the State House to speak out against HB 301 and in support of HB 545.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Education bills could create tax quandary puzzle
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff
Several bills aimed at supporting parental choice in education, if all were to pass, could create a financial incentive for some parents to keep their kids home to learn, one sponsor acknowledged last week.
House Bill 340 would require communities to grant property tax abatements of up to $3,500 for each taxpayer's child not enrolled in the public schools.
There's some confusion about whether the proposed tax abatement would apply to home-schooling parents. Rep. Carol Vita, R-Middleton, the prime sponsor, said that wasn't her intent.
Her idea was to give parents who pay to send their children to a school out of their district -- private, parochial, charter or even another public school -- the tax break. "This is only if you want to send your child out of the school district," she said.
But Sen. James Forsythe, R-Strafford, the sole Senate sponsor of the measure, said it "would also apply to home-schoolers as well."
"The intent is if you're not using a public school system, and spending money on private school or home school, this would allow you to get a tax break," said Forsythe, who said his wife previously home-schooled their two children for seven years.
"I think respecting parental choice is what this bill's all about. And empowering them to have more choices for their kids' education."
The tax abatement proposal comes at a time when home-school advocates are pushing for less state regulation. The House Education Committee on Tuesday will hear three bills related to home education:
House Bill 595 would repeal the state home education law and assert "the natural right of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children."
House Bill 301 also would repeal the home education law and make it a violation under child welfare laws for parents to "purposely" fail to provide an education for their children.
And House Bill 545 would repeal the state Department of Education's rule-making authority for home education.
Forsythe, who also co-sponsored HB 595, said he does have some concerns about unintended consequences should all the measures pass.
"The only problem with that is it might set up an incentive for some folks to keep their kids at home to get the tax break but not actually school them," he said.
Daniel Kimble is president of Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire, which represents more than 100 families in the state. His six children, ages 2 to 17, are home-schooled.
He said his organization is looking for less regulation.
"You go back to the beginning of the founding of our country, and it's always been the parents' rights, the parents' responsibility, to educate their children," he said. "Required schooling, it's a modern phenomenon ... and it's ended up causing problems for home-schoolers and for those that want to go back to traditional ways of schooling."
Kimble said he supports repeal of the home-schooling law and likes the idea of a tax abatement for families like his. He doesn't believe it would create an incentive for parents to keep their kids home.
"I see it as a benefit that somebody who wanted to home-school their children but felt they didn't have enough money to be able to buy curriculum, you're now getting (money) ... back," he said.
Rep. Lucien Vita, Carol Vita's husband and a co-sponsor of HB 340, said the bill might have to be amended so it does not include home-schoolers. "The purpose of this bill is to stop people having to pay twice for something you only get once," he said.
Some have other concerns about the proposed abatement.
Greg Moore, House policy director, said Republican leadership supports the home-education bills, but has not taken a position on HB 340.
There is some concern, he said, that "because it requires the municipalities to offer tax abatements, it may well violate Article 28A of the (state) constitution." That prohibits adopting unfunded mandates that pass on costs to local communities, he explained.
Rep. Betsy Patten, R-Moultonborough, a member of the Municipal and County Government Committee that will hear the tax abatement bill, said she shares those concerns. And she said it also might open the door for other taxpayers who don't have children in the schools to demand abatements as well.
Passing a tax abatement or exemption for one group of taxpayers, Patten said, "just shifts it to everybody else in the community."
"You have to realize the consequences of it are that everybody else has to pick up that $3,500," Patten said. "And that's some amount on everybody's tax bill."
Judy Silva is deputy director for legal services and government affairs at the New Hampshire Municipal Association. She said the association would have "some real problems" with HB 340 as written.
Silva explained towns can collect an extra 5 percent on the municipal portion of property taxes, called an overlay, that is used to cover abatements. But she said HB 340 calls for the proposed abatements to come out of the education portion of the property tax bill, where no overlay exists.
Silva also said the proposal could raise equity issues, with other taxpayers claiming they are entitled to abatements if they don't use their municipality's schools, fire departments or landfills.
And she agreed with Patten that other taxpayers would have to pay more if the abatements were mandatory. "Since what is collected in taxes is based on what the budgeted amount is, it needs to be made up," she said.
Homeschooling parents need to come out in full force to the State House to speak out against HB 301 and in support of HB 545.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Education bills could create tax quandary puzzle
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff
Several bills aimed at supporting parental choice in education, if all were to pass, could create a financial incentive for some parents to keep their kids home to learn, one sponsor acknowledged last week.
House Bill 340 would require communities to grant property tax abatements of up to $3,500 for each taxpayer's child not enrolled in the public schools.
There's some confusion about whether the proposed tax abatement would apply to home-schooling parents. Rep. Carol Vita, R-Middleton, the prime sponsor, said that wasn't her intent.
Her idea was to give parents who pay to send their children to a school out of their district -- private, parochial, charter or even another public school -- the tax break. "This is only if you want to send your child out of the school district," she said.
But Sen. James Forsythe, R-Strafford, the sole Senate sponsor of the measure, said it "would also apply to home-schoolers as well."
"The intent is if you're not using a public school system, and spending money on private school or home school, this would allow you to get a tax break," said Forsythe, who said his wife previously home-schooled their two children for seven years.
"I think respecting parental choice is what this bill's all about. And empowering them to have more choices for their kids' education."
The tax abatement proposal comes at a time when home-school advocates are pushing for less state regulation. The House Education Committee on Tuesday will hear three bills related to home education:
House Bill 595 would repeal the state home education law and assert "the natural right of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children."
House Bill 301 also would repeal the home education law and make it a violation under child welfare laws for parents to "purposely" fail to provide an education for their children.
And House Bill 545 would repeal the state Department of Education's rule-making authority for home education.
Forsythe, who also co-sponsored HB 595, said he does have some concerns about unintended consequences should all the measures pass.
"The only problem with that is it might set up an incentive for some folks to keep their kids at home to get the tax break but not actually school them," he said.
Daniel Kimble is president of Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire, which represents more than 100 families in the state. His six children, ages 2 to 17, are home-schooled.
He said his organization is looking for less regulation.
"You go back to the beginning of the founding of our country, and it's always been the parents' rights, the parents' responsibility, to educate their children," he said. "Required schooling, it's a modern phenomenon ... and it's ended up causing problems for home-schoolers and for those that want to go back to traditional ways of schooling."
Kimble said he supports repeal of the home-schooling law and likes the idea of a tax abatement for families like his. He doesn't believe it would create an incentive for parents to keep their kids home.
"I see it as a benefit that somebody who wanted to home-school their children but felt they didn't have enough money to be able to buy curriculum, you're now getting (money) ... back," he said.
Rep. Lucien Vita, Carol Vita's husband and a co-sponsor of HB 340, said the bill might have to be amended so it does not include home-schoolers. "The purpose of this bill is to stop people having to pay twice for something you only get once," he said.
Some have other concerns about the proposed abatement.
Greg Moore, House policy director, said Republican leadership supports the home-education bills, but has not taken a position on HB 340.
There is some concern, he said, that "because it requires the municipalities to offer tax abatements, it may well violate Article 28A of the (state) constitution." That prohibits adopting unfunded mandates that pass on costs to local communities, he explained.
Rep. Betsy Patten, R-Moultonborough, a member of the Municipal and County Government Committee that will hear the tax abatement bill, said she shares those concerns. And she said it also might open the door for other taxpayers who don't have children in the schools to demand abatements as well.
Passing a tax abatement or exemption for one group of taxpayers, Patten said, "just shifts it to everybody else in the community."
"You have to realize the consequences of it are that everybody else has to pick up that $3,500," Patten said. "And that's some amount on everybody's tax bill."
Judy Silva is deputy director for legal services and government affairs at the New Hampshire Municipal Association. She said the association would have "some real problems" with HB 340 as written.
Silva explained towns can collect an extra 5 percent on the municipal portion of property taxes, called an overlay, that is used to cover abatements. But she said HB 340 calls for the proposed abatements to come out of the education portion of the property tax bill, where no overlay exists.
Silva also said the proposal could raise equity issues, with other taxpayers claiming they are entitled to abatements if they don't use their municipality's schools, fire departments or landfills.
And she agreed with Patten that other taxpayers would have to pay more if the abatements were mandatory. "Since what is collected in taxes is based on what the budgeted amount is, it needs to be made up," she said.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Parents First Not Educrats or Bureaucrats
Looking for up to date information on New Hampshire Homeschooling Bills, visit the NH Parents First Blog spot.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
HB 301 Could make you a Criminal
The following piece appears on the NH Parents First website. Be sure to visit their website for more great information about homeschooling legislation in New Hampshire.
Quote of the Day - ...we have come to realise that for most men the right to learn is curtailed by the obligation to attend school - Ivan Illich
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
HB 301
An analysis of the New Hampshire Homeschool Freedom Act
In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four “Newspeak” means the opposite of what it says. The Ministry for Peace concerns itself with perpetual war; the Ministry of Plenty is responsible for rationing and controlling food and goods; the Ministry of Love is the agency responsible for the identification, monitoring, arrest, and torture of dissidents, real or imagined; and the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda arm of Oceania’s regime.
HB 301 is not what it appears to be. It is designed to leave in place the same regulatory framework as the HSLDA-designed home education law of 1990, so that HSLDA may benefit from mediating, for a fee, the relationship between homeschooling families and the state. This proposal is designed to ensure efficient state regulation of homeschoolers.
It is reasonable for the state to require attendance upon instruction in the hope of maintaining an educated citizenry. It is unreasonable to create a legal framework by which to prosecute parents who fail to properly educate their children based upon any state standard. It is censorship of the parental duty. If this is allowed, then parents no longer have any personal responsibility. They must simply implement the standards established by an elite, or be criminalized for their failure to do so.
Home School Legal Defense Association Attorney Michael Donnelly appears to be the author of HB 301. He sent drafts to various legislators for their review.
Quote of the Day - ...we have come to realise that for most men the right to learn is curtailed by the obligation to attend school - Ivan Illich
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
HB 301
An analysis of the New Hampshire Homeschool Freedom Act
In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four “Newspeak” means the opposite of what it says. The Ministry for Peace concerns itself with perpetual war; the Ministry of Plenty is responsible for rationing and controlling food and goods; the Ministry of Love is the agency responsible for the identification, monitoring, arrest, and torture of dissidents, real or imagined; and the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda arm of Oceania’s regime.
HB 301 is not what it appears to be. It is designed to leave in place the same regulatory framework as the HSLDA-designed home education law of 1990, so that HSLDA may benefit from mediating, for a fee, the relationship between homeschooling families and the state. This proposal is designed to ensure efficient state regulation of homeschoolers.
It is reasonable for the state to require attendance upon instruction in the hope of maintaining an educated citizenry. It is unreasonable to create a legal framework by which to prosecute parents who fail to properly educate their children based upon any state standard. It is censorship of the parental duty. If this is allowed, then parents no longer have any personal responsibility. They must simply implement the standards established by an elite, or be criminalized for their failure to do so.
Home School Legal Defense Association Attorney Michael Donnelly appears to be the author of HB 301. He sent drafts to various legislators for their review.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Glory Be!
Could it be, could a government body really right a wrong? Could a group of people finally take back schools from the teachers' unions? Public schools were hijacked by the teachers so long ago, it is time to take back schools so they become places of education not indoctrination.
The following piece appeared on SpartaNews.com.
Quote of the Day - We have a cultural notion that if children were not engineered, if we did not manipulate them, they would grow up as beasts in the field. This is the wildest fallacy in the world. - Joseph Chilton Pearce
TN House and Senate considering end of teachers’ unions
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Two bills seek to abolish collective bargaining with boards of education
By Greg England
Staff Writer
greg@myspartanews.com
Published: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:29 AM CST
Two bills, recently introduced in both the Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives, would abolish teachers’ unions ability to negotiate terms and conditions of professional services with local boards of education.
On Jan. 18, 2011, Rep. Debra Maggart and Rep. Glen Casada introduced House Bill 0130; while Senate Bill 0113, co-sponsored by Sen. Jack Johnson, Sen. Delores R. Gresham, Sen. Jim Summerville, and Sen. Brian Kelsey, was introduced on Jan. 24, 2011.
Both bills would amend Tennessee Code Annotated 5-23-107 and Title 49, also known as the Education Professional Negotiations Act.
The Education Professional Negotiations Act, which was enacted in 1978, gives any person employed by a local board of education or charter school, who has a position that requires a license for service in public elementary and secondary schools the right to form or join an union.
According to the bill’s summary, it would prohibit any local board of education from negotiating with a professional employees’ organization or teachers’ union.
While the bill would remove all rights and requirements under present state law that allows for negotiations between such professional organizations or unions and local boards of education, it would not immediately affect current contracts or previously negotiated terms or conditions.
Any such contract or agreement would remain in full force until the expiration of the contract or agreement.
Employees would then be allowed all employment rights afforded them under state and federal law, as well as any personnel policies applicable to them.
The following piece appeared on SpartaNews.com.
Quote of the Day - We have a cultural notion that if children were not engineered, if we did not manipulate them, they would grow up as beasts in the field. This is the wildest fallacy in the world. - Joseph Chilton Pearce
TN House and Senate considering end of teachers’ unions
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Two bills seek to abolish collective bargaining with boards of education
By Greg England
Staff Writer
greg@myspartanews.com
Published: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:29 AM CST
Two bills, recently introduced in both the Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives, would abolish teachers’ unions ability to negotiate terms and conditions of professional services with local boards of education.
On Jan. 18, 2011, Rep. Debra Maggart and Rep. Glen Casada introduced House Bill 0130; while Senate Bill 0113, co-sponsored by Sen. Jack Johnson, Sen. Delores R. Gresham, Sen. Jim Summerville, and Sen. Brian Kelsey, was introduced on Jan. 24, 2011.
Both bills would amend Tennessee Code Annotated 5-23-107 and Title 49, also known as the Education Professional Negotiations Act.
The Education Professional Negotiations Act, which was enacted in 1978, gives any person employed by a local board of education or charter school, who has a position that requires a license for service in public elementary and secondary schools the right to form or join an union.
According to the bill’s summary, it would prohibit any local board of education from negotiating with a professional employees’ organization or teachers’ union.
While the bill would remove all rights and requirements under present state law that allows for negotiations between such professional organizations or unions and local boards of education, it would not immediately affect current contracts or previously negotiated terms or conditions.
Any such contract or agreement would remain in full force until the expiration of the contract or agreement.
Employees would then be allowed all employment rights afforded them under state and federal law, as well as any personnel policies applicable to them.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Could Homeschooling Freedom Become a Reality?
New Hampshire Homeschoolers and future New Hampshire Homeschoolers, homeschooling freedom could become a reality in New Hampshire, please contact your Representatives and Senators and ask them to support House Bill - 595. HB595- amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes. Sponsors:(Prime)Laura Jones , Andrew Manuse, Seth Cohn, Raymond White, James Forsythe, Jim Luther, Alfred Baldasaro, Carol Vita, Harry Accornero, Kevin Avard, Stephen Palmer, Tyler Simpson.
Also contact the House Education Committee and ask them to support HB 595.
For more information visit the New Hampshire Families for Education website.
Quote of the Day - "Educate the child according to his way, even when he grows old he will not abandon it." Proverbs 22:6
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Also contact the House Education Committee and ask them to support HB 595.
For more information visit the New Hampshire Families for Education website.
Quote of the Day - "Educate the child according to his way, even when he grows old he will not abandon it." Proverbs 22:6
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Tenure
Tenure does not belong in the K-12 system.
Quote of the Day - "Frustrated by procedural hoops and the high costs of dismissing a poor teacher, schools sometimes resort to buyouts rather than outright firings. They then try to hide that cost from public view." Scott Reeder The Hidden Cost of Tenure
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Kid's Aren't Cars - No Duh!
Kid's Aren't Cars - No Duh!
It is a sorry state in America that a film like this has to be made. If parents do not know this already they are just not paying attention. If you are a parent you should be aware of your school's report card and what is in all the teachers', administrators' and support staffs contracts. You should also be reviewing your children's books and that is just for starters.
According to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) 09 report, the USA is 27th in math, 22nd in science, 32nd in reading – dead last in 32 industrialized nations! But so called good parents, conservatives and libertarians keep their children in Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers, I have to ask once again, "Why are you allowing someone to bare the burden of educating YOUR children?"
The following piece appeared on Big Government.com. Be sure to visit the Big Government website to see the links associated with this story.
Quote of the Day - "Freedom requires responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
New Film Exposes Unions’ Decimation of Education
by Kyle Olson
“Kids Aren’t Cars” is a new short film series set for release February 1st. Using examples from the Midwest, it documents the impact organized labor has had on the American education system, creating a one-size-fits-all assembly line model that leaves students behind and treats teachers equally, stifling innovation and improvement.
Our government education system has been spending more and more each year, yet the results have been the same. While unions demand higher spending – which of course ends up in the pockets of their members – money is not fixing the problem.
Those that have been in the trenches gave shocking interviews – stories of money grabs by adults while children are left behind.
An executive director of a literacy clinic in Detroit – where high school graduates go to learn how to read – compared the actions of the school board to the Ku Klux Klan. “If they were sitting up there in Klan robes,” she said, no one would be tolerating what is going on, but the effect is the same. [Eight of the 9 school board members are black.]
We tell the story of two Indiana teachers recognized state-wide for their impact on students, only to be fired literally the next day because they lacked seniority of their co-workers.
Numerous leaders sound the alarm, but do elected leaders have the courage to stand up to the all-powerful teachers’ unions? The tide seems to be turning, but the need is dire. The United States continues to slip globally, with student achievement lagging behind Iceland and Hungary.
In short, it’s because our public school system is designed to benefits adults, at the expense of children. The focus has been on spending – which invariably ends up in pay, health benefits and retirement for the employees.
“Kids Aren’t Cars” is an unflinching look at the state of public education in America and what can be done about it.
The film’s Facebook page is here.
It is a sorry state in America that a film like this has to be made. If parents do not know this already they are just not paying attention. If you are a parent you should be aware of your school's report card and what is in all the teachers', administrators' and support staffs contracts. You should also be reviewing your children's books and that is just for starters.
According to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) 09 report, the USA is 27th in math, 22nd in science, 32nd in reading – dead last in 32 industrialized nations! But so called good parents, conservatives and libertarians keep their children in Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers, I have to ask once again, "Why are you allowing someone to bare the burden of educating YOUR children?"
The following piece appeared on Big Government.com. Be sure to visit the Big Government website to see the links associated with this story.
Quote of the Day - "Freedom requires responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
New Film Exposes Unions’ Decimation of Education
by Kyle Olson
“Kids Aren’t Cars” is a new short film series set for release February 1st. Using examples from the Midwest, it documents the impact organized labor has had on the American education system, creating a one-size-fits-all assembly line model that leaves students behind and treats teachers equally, stifling innovation and improvement.
Our government education system has been spending more and more each year, yet the results have been the same. While unions demand higher spending – which of course ends up in the pockets of their members – money is not fixing the problem.
Those that have been in the trenches gave shocking interviews – stories of money grabs by adults while children are left behind.
An executive director of a literacy clinic in Detroit – where high school graduates go to learn how to read – compared the actions of the school board to the Ku Klux Klan. “If they were sitting up there in Klan robes,” she said, no one would be tolerating what is going on, but the effect is the same. [Eight of the 9 school board members are black.]
We tell the story of two Indiana teachers recognized state-wide for their impact on students, only to be fired literally the next day because they lacked seniority of their co-workers.
Numerous leaders sound the alarm, but do elected leaders have the courage to stand up to the all-powerful teachers’ unions? The tide seems to be turning, but the need is dire. The United States continues to slip globally, with student achievement lagging behind Iceland and Hungary.
In short, it’s because our public school system is designed to benefits adults, at the expense of children. The focus has been on spending – which invariably ends up in pay, health benefits and retirement for the employees.
“Kids Aren’t Cars” is an unflinching look at the state of public education in America and what can be done about it.
The film’s Facebook page is here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Seven Years before you can be a Senator in New Hampshire!
It is time for the law to change.
Why is it that Alan Keyes can move to Illinois and run for Senator in the same month, Hillary Clinton can move to New York and within months run for Senator but I have to live for seven years in New Hampshire before I can run for State Senator? The law is draconian and needs to be changed.
The Republican Party's little move with Jack Ryan and Alan Keyes was insanity and the initial event that resulted in getting Obama elected. I believe if they had supported Jack Ryan and not replaced him with Alan Keyes, Obama would have never been elected.
Cathy Peschke
Why is it that Alan Keyes can move to Illinois and run for Senator in the same month, Hillary Clinton can move to New York and within months run for Senator but I have to live for seven years in New Hampshire before I can run for State Senator? The law is draconian and needs to be changed.
The Republican Party's little move with Jack Ryan and Alan Keyes was insanity and the initial event that resulted in getting Obama elected. I believe if they had supported Jack Ryan and not replaced him with Alan Keyes, Obama would have never been elected.
Cathy Peschke
Friday, May 7, 2010
Bankruptcy? Say it is not so.
We did not see this coming, NOT! The following piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Be sure to visit the Wall Street Journal to see the picture associated with the story.
Jim and I have been reporting that States will bankrupt themselves if they do not control spending at least since 2005. If you are a company or work for a company making their living off the taxpayer teat there is a chance you won't get paid. Easy money is a suckers bet.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left an exercise for my readers.
Illinois Budget Woes Come to a Boil
By AMY MERRICK
Illinois lawmakers were in disarray Thursday as they groped for stopgap measures to address a $13 billion deficit equaling nearly half of the state's general-fund revenue.
The state faces one of the nation's worst budget crises, spilled over in part from the broader national economic crunch, and its current bond ratings lag only California's. But the confusion in the legislature indicates that serious steps to fix state finances won't be taken until after the November elections—if then.
Most states have addressed or still face gaps in their budgets totaling $196 billion for fiscal year 2010, while tax revenue declined in the final quarter of 2009 in 39 of the states for which data is available.
Illinois lawmakers have little appetite for drastic spending cuts. An income-tax increase proposed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is going nowhere. Even temporary steps, such as borrowing to make pension payments, have stalled. Illinois is months late on many of its bills and has no plan for catching up.
The legislature may push the problem to the governor's office by granting Mr. Quinn emergency budget powers and adjourning Friday, about three weeks earlier than usual. A bill under consideration in the state House would give Mr. Quinn greater leeway to shift money among state funds and to require agencies to set aside part of their budgets now in case of future cuts.
A state House committee on Thursday passed a cigarette-tax increase that would generate $320 million by raising the state tax from 98 cents a pack to $1.98 a pack over two years. The House also is considering authorizing a sale of expected tobacco-settlement funds, which could bring in $1.2 billion, said State Sen. Donne Trotter, a Democrat.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross called the tobacco-settlement plan "a gimmick" and said he and other Republicans oppose borrowing the pension payment. "We are having the same conversations today that we had a year ago about the need for reform," he said.
Regardless of its final form, the budget will leave the state borrowing for short-term operations and postponing its bills.
"We are lucky in that we still can borrow," Mr. Trotter said, noting that lawmakers responded to rating-agency concerns last month by reducing pension benefits and lifting the retirement age for new state employees to 67 from 60. Lawmakers also are weighing the idea of postponing pension payments for the first half of the fiscal year until January, Mr. Trotter said.
Illinois's problems are an exaggerated version of dynamics playing out across the U.S. All states except Vermont have at least a limited requirement to balance their budgets. In practice, many states rely on one-time revenue windfalls or short-term borrowing to scrape from one fiscal year to the next.
State budgets typically lag the national economy by several years, and the recession has decimated income-tax and sales-tax revenue. Lawmakers often don't want to aggravate voters by raising taxes during an election year.
But legislatures find cutting expenses politically difficult, too. State budgets are dominated by education and health care programs that many voters cherish.
As a result, Illinois, along with other states, routinely has postponed paying its bills, shortchanged pension plans and spent more than it collects in revenue.
It's possible lawmakers will keep working on the budget until they are required to adjourn at the end of the month. Rikeesha Phelon, a spokeswoman for Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, said Friday's deadline was "just a goal."
Mr. Quinn presented a budget in March that would still leave the state with a $10.6 billion deficit. His plan projected a deficit of $4.7 billion for the coming fiscal year beginning July 1—which he planned to cover through borrowing—and a $5.9 billion deficit carried over from the current budget.
The governor also proposed cutting expenses by $1.5 billion and raising the state income tax 1.5 percentage points, to 4.5% from 3%. He said the tax hike would be used to avert tens of thousands of teacher layoffs. A different proposal to raise income-tax rates passed the state Senate last year but has stalled in the House.
Any hopes that the national economic recovery would help the budget discussions were dashed this week when Illinois disclosed that revenue for April —when most citizens pay taxes—fell more than 15% from the same month a year ago, or $501 million, in part because of a $345 million drop in federal aid. Gross personal income-tax receipts, a major revenue source, dropped $103 million, or 8.1%.
Many states are likely to report similar disappointments. California officials said this week that April personal income tax-collections lagged projections by 30%. Federal estimates don't bode well for states, either.
As of April 30, federal non-withheld income taxes for April fell 17.6% from the same month a year earlier, said a report Tuesday from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York.
Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes said in his April report that the state's cash position for the quarter ending June 30 "looks exceedingly difficult." By June 10, Illinois must repay $1.75 billion, plus interest, in short-term borrowing.
Meanwhile, the state still owes billions of dollars to hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others. Mr. Hynes said the state's backlog of unpaid bills probably will exceed $5.5 billion at the end of June.
"Eventually, many providers of essential state services may be unable to continue their operations at current levels, and those vulnerable segments of the population to whom they provide services will suffer the consequences," he wrote.
Write to Amy Merrick at amy.merrick@wsj.com
Jim and I have been reporting that States will bankrupt themselves if they do not control spending at least since 2005. If you are a company or work for a company making their living off the taxpayer teat there is a chance you won't get paid. Easy money is a suckers bet.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left an exercise for my readers.
Illinois Budget Woes Come to a Boil
By AMY MERRICK
Illinois lawmakers were in disarray Thursday as they groped for stopgap measures to address a $13 billion deficit equaling nearly half of the state's general-fund revenue.
The state faces one of the nation's worst budget crises, spilled over in part from the broader national economic crunch, and its current bond ratings lag only California's. But the confusion in the legislature indicates that serious steps to fix state finances won't be taken until after the November elections—if then.
Most states have addressed or still face gaps in their budgets totaling $196 billion for fiscal year 2010, while tax revenue declined in the final quarter of 2009 in 39 of the states for which data is available.
Illinois lawmakers have little appetite for drastic spending cuts. An income-tax increase proposed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is going nowhere. Even temporary steps, such as borrowing to make pension payments, have stalled. Illinois is months late on many of its bills and has no plan for catching up.
The legislature may push the problem to the governor's office by granting Mr. Quinn emergency budget powers and adjourning Friday, about three weeks earlier than usual. A bill under consideration in the state House would give Mr. Quinn greater leeway to shift money among state funds and to require agencies to set aside part of their budgets now in case of future cuts.
A state House committee on Thursday passed a cigarette-tax increase that would generate $320 million by raising the state tax from 98 cents a pack to $1.98 a pack over two years. The House also is considering authorizing a sale of expected tobacco-settlement funds, which could bring in $1.2 billion, said State Sen. Donne Trotter, a Democrat.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross called the tobacco-settlement plan "a gimmick" and said he and other Republicans oppose borrowing the pension payment. "We are having the same conversations today that we had a year ago about the need for reform," he said.
Regardless of its final form, the budget will leave the state borrowing for short-term operations and postponing its bills.
"We are lucky in that we still can borrow," Mr. Trotter said, noting that lawmakers responded to rating-agency concerns last month by reducing pension benefits and lifting the retirement age for new state employees to 67 from 60. Lawmakers also are weighing the idea of postponing pension payments for the first half of the fiscal year until January, Mr. Trotter said.
Illinois's problems are an exaggerated version of dynamics playing out across the U.S. All states except Vermont have at least a limited requirement to balance their budgets. In practice, many states rely on one-time revenue windfalls or short-term borrowing to scrape from one fiscal year to the next.
State budgets typically lag the national economy by several years, and the recession has decimated income-tax and sales-tax revenue. Lawmakers often don't want to aggravate voters by raising taxes during an election year.
But legislatures find cutting expenses politically difficult, too. State budgets are dominated by education and health care programs that many voters cherish.
As a result, Illinois, along with other states, routinely has postponed paying its bills, shortchanged pension plans and spent more than it collects in revenue.
It's possible lawmakers will keep working on the budget until they are required to adjourn at the end of the month. Rikeesha Phelon, a spokeswoman for Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, said Friday's deadline was "just a goal."
Mr. Quinn presented a budget in March that would still leave the state with a $10.6 billion deficit. His plan projected a deficit of $4.7 billion for the coming fiscal year beginning July 1—which he planned to cover through borrowing—and a $5.9 billion deficit carried over from the current budget.
The governor also proposed cutting expenses by $1.5 billion and raising the state income tax 1.5 percentage points, to 4.5% from 3%. He said the tax hike would be used to avert tens of thousands of teacher layoffs. A different proposal to raise income-tax rates passed the state Senate last year but has stalled in the House.
Any hopes that the national economic recovery would help the budget discussions were dashed this week when Illinois disclosed that revenue for April —when most citizens pay taxes—fell more than 15% from the same month a year ago, or $501 million, in part because of a $345 million drop in federal aid. Gross personal income-tax receipts, a major revenue source, dropped $103 million, or 8.1%.
Many states are likely to report similar disappointments. California officials said this week that April personal income tax-collections lagged projections by 30%. Federal estimates don't bode well for states, either.
As of April 30, federal non-withheld income taxes for April fell 17.6% from the same month a year earlier, said a report Tuesday from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York.
Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes said in his April report that the state's cash position for the quarter ending June 30 "looks exceedingly difficult." By June 10, Illinois must repay $1.75 billion, plus interest, in short-term borrowing.
Meanwhile, the state still owes billions of dollars to hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others. Mr. Hynes said the state's backlog of unpaid bills probably will exceed $5.5 billion at the end of June.
"Eventually, many providers of essential state services may be unable to continue their operations at current levels, and those vulnerable segments of the population to whom they provide services will suffer the consequences," he wrote.
Write to Amy Merrick at amy.merrick@wsj.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Legislators Must Stop Pandering and Put Students First
When legislators start to put students before the teachers' unions public schools will improve and we will see a return to personal responsibility. JIm and I championed for years to get programs like this passed in Illinois. The following piece appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
Joyce said some "Chicago Democrats remain reluctant to support the bill, worried about a backlash from teachers unions." If this is the case these legislators need to be replaced students must come before the unions.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
More kids, more choices
How about this? Suddenly everybody wants in on the act.
In late March, the Illinois Senate passed a bill to give vouchers for private school tuition to as many as 22,000 children who go to the academically weakest Chicago public schools.
That bill is now in the House, and it's being rewritten to cover even more kids. The lead sponsor, Democratic Rep. Kevin Joyce of Chicago, is drafting an amendment to offer vouchers to kids in the most severely overcrowded Chicago schools. The Senate sponsor, Chicago Democrat James Meeks, is on board with the change.
Best of all: Chicago school officials aren't fighting this. They're working closely with the sponsors. They would administer the voucher program.
This program holds tremendous promise for thousands of kids and wouldn't add a dime of cost to the state or any greater burden on the Chicago Public Schools. The tuition covered by the voucher would come from money the state provides to CPS. The bill is being redrawn to guarantee that the state won't spend more than it does now.
Yes, school vouchers are still controversial. Joyce said some Chicago Democrats remain reluctant to support the bill, worried about a backlash from teachers unions.
But it has been wonderful to see so many lawmakers set such political concerns aside. The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It came out of the House Executive Committee on a 10-1 vote.
"I've been 1,000 percent supportive of the teachers unions, and I probably have as many teachers in my district as anybody. This goes beyond teachers," Joyce told us Monday.
Yes, it does. It goes directly to helping children find good schools.
We like the idea of taking on the issue of overcrowding. Latino legislators have been searching for years for an answer to overcrowding because their constituents' kids bear most of the brunt of jam-packed schools.
Here's a ready answer to that. It doesn't require spending big bucks to build new schools. It lets kids go to existing schools, private schools, good schools, schools of their choice.
This is all far from a done deal. Opponents may have been caught by surprise by the strong approval in the Senate. We expect a tight vote in the House. And, unfortunately, an amended bill will have to go back to the Senate for another vote. That opens the door for more politicking. It makes this program vulnerable to getting lost in the rush to finish the legislative session. That can't be allowed to happen.
All in all, we're encouraged by the progress and momentum of this bill, by the growing and diverse list of co-sponsors, and now by the prospect of broadening it to help even more Chicago kids get a chance to choose their own school.
Joyce said some "Chicago Democrats remain reluctant to support the bill, worried about a backlash from teachers unions." If this is the case these legislators need to be replaced students must come before the unions.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
More kids, more choices
How about this? Suddenly everybody wants in on the act.
In late March, the Illinois Senate passed a bill to give vouchers for private school tuition to as many as 22,000 children who go to the academically weakest Chicago public schools.
That bill is now in the House, and it's being rewritten to cover even more kids. The lead sponsor, Democratic Rep. Kevin Joyce of Chicago, is drafting an amendment to offer vouchers to kids in the most severely overcrowded Chicago schools. The Senate sponsor, Chicago Democrat James Meeks, is on board with the change.
Best of all: Chicago school officials aren't fighting this. They're working closely with the sponsors. They would administer the voucher program.
This program holds tremendous promise for thousands of kids and wouldn't add a dime of cost to the state or any greater burden on the Chicago Public Schools. The tuition covered by the voucher would come from money the state provides to CPS. The bill is being redrawn to guarantee that the state won't spend more than it does now.
Yes, school vouchers are still controversial. Joyce said some Chicago Democrats remain reluctant to support the bill, worried about a backlash from teachers unions.
But it has been wonderful to see so many lawmakers set such political concerns aside. The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It came out of the House Executive Committee on a 10-1 vote.
"I've been 1,000 percent supportive of the teachers unions, and I probably have as many teachers in my district as anybody. This goes beyond teachers," Joyce told us Monday.
Yes, it does. It goes directly to helping children find good schools.
We like the idea of taking on the issue of overcrowding. Latino legislators have been searching for years for an answer to overcrowding because their constituents' kids bear most of the brunt of jam-packed schools.
Here's a ready answer to that. It doesn't require spending big bucks to build new schools. It lets kids go to existing schools, private schools, good schools, schools of their choice.
This is all far from a done deal. Opponents may have been caught by surprise by the strong approval in the Senate. We expect a tight vote in the House. And, unfortunately, an amended bill will have to go back to the Senate for another vote. That opens the door for more politicking. It makes this program vulnerable to getting lost in the rush to finish the legislative session. That can't be allowed to happen.
All in all, we're encouraged by the progress and momentum of this bill, by the growing and diverse list of co-sponsors, and now by the prospect of broadening it to help even more Chicago kids get a chance to choose their own school.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
If it is not Good Enough for Them it is not Good Enough for Me
The following piece appeared in the Washington Times.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
EDITORIAL: No Obamacare for ObamaDemocrats exempt themselves from socialist medicine
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Obama declared that the new health care law "is going to be affecting every American family." Except his own, of course.
The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.
Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that "people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition." At yesterday's signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be "part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They'll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves." But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.
Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch - including the president, vice president and Cabinet members - was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.
Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.
The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama's explanation why if his "historic" health care law is so great for America, it's not good enough for him and his family.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
EDITORIAL: No Obamacare for ObamaDemocrats exempt themselves from socialist medicine
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Obama declared that the new health care law "is going to be affecting every American family." Except his own, of course.
The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.
Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that "people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition." At yesterday's signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be "part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They'll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves." But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.
Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch - including the president, vice president and Cabinet members - was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.
Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.
The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama's explanation why if his "historic" health care law is so great for America, it's not good enough for him and his family.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Will Passage of the Healthcare Bill lead to Outlawing Homeschooling?
I think so. As long as progressives control the House, Senate and Presidency homeschooling is at a threat of being outlawed in the US. Many Countries are following the UN's dictate and are outlawing homeschooling.
The following piece appeared on One News Now.com.
Quote of the Day - "If it’s wrong—and it is—for the government to intrude into the churches of our nation, to reshape and affect their basic doctrine and teaching, then it is just as wrong for that same government to be the sponsor of the worldview and values of 90 percent of all our nation’s children." - Joel Belz, publisher, World Magazine, October 9, 2004
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The effect of healthcare reform on home schooling
Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 3/19/2010 4:45:00 AM
A national home school group is concerned that passage of the healthcare reform bill could pose a serious threat to parental rights and home school freedom.
According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), the pending healthcare legislation would provide federal grants to fund state home visitation programs. Attorney Will Estrada with HSLDA reports that states receive grants through a competitive system where preferences are given to states that have increased the number of families who are receiving services.
"So there could be some pressure on the states, because they want to receive this federal money, to look for families who are receiving these services, and then try to pressure them to get these services," Estrada warns.
He notes that the program in the bill is voluntary, but a foundation being laid reveals that the government thinks it knows how best to raise children.
"Once you start down that road, the next step could be, 'Oh, you don't want to take these federally funded services? Why is that? Is there any abuse going on? Should we be investigating your family?' And what could start out as a fairly good program for some families could basically become, 'If you don't receive these services, you're considered at risk' -- and you sort of go under the microscope," the attorney explains.
The HSLDA believes the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund and oversee home visitation programs and parenting classes.
The following piece appeared on One News Now.com.
Quote of the Day - "If it’s wrong—and it is—for the government to intrude into the churches of our nation, to reshape and affect their basic doctrine and teaching, then it is just as wrong for that same government to be the sponsor of the worldview and values of 90 percent of all our nation’s children." - Joel Belz, publisher, World Magazine, October 9, 2004
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The effect of healthcare reform on home schooling
Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 3/19/2010 4:45:00 AM
A national home school group is concerned that passage of the healthcare reform bill could pose a serious threat to parental rights and home school freedom.
According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), the pending healthcare legislation would provide federal grants to fund state home visitation programs. Attorney Will Estrada with HSLDA reports that states receive grants through a competitive system where preferences are given to states that have increased the number of families who are receiving services.
"So there could be some pressure on the states, because they want to receive this federal money, to look for families who are receiving these services, and then try to pressure them to get these services," Estrada warns.
He notes that the program in the bill is voluntary, but a foundation being laid reveals that the government thinks it knows how best to raise children.
"Once you start down that road, the next step could be, 'Oh, you don't want to take these federally funded services? Why is that? Is there any abuse going on? Should we be investigating your family?' And what could start out as a fairly good program for some families could basically become, 'If you don't receive these services, you're considered at risk' -- and you sort of go under the microscope," the attorney explains.
The HSLDA believes the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund and oversee home visitation programs and parenting classes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)