Charter School May Unionize

Frequent readers know I am a huge fan of charter schools and hold a dislike for government unions. My dislike of government unions has to do with their effect on the different forms of government, the people they serve, productivity and taxpayers. While doing some research on teacher certification vs. student performance I reminded myself of Jay P. Greene's Blog. We have a ton of links on our site which I do not visit as often as I would like. Jim always tells me, "life is just too short there is so much more I want to learn." Considering he is one of the most intelligent and informative people I know it is amazing he feels he has so much more to learn. Bit I digress.... I ran across the following piece on Jay P. Greene's Blog titled KIPP RIP.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

KIPP RIP
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, two KIPP schools in New York have had a majority of their teachers vote to unionize under a card check type provision. New York Times story here.

Andy Rotherham attempts to downplay the whole incident. Nice try Andy, but forget about it. KIPP should pull the plug on these schools at the end of the school year, burn down the buildings and plow salt into the ground upon which they once stood. This would be tragic for the people that no doubt worked very hard to bring these schools to life, but let’s face it, their efforts would be much better rewarded in other states.



The whole idea of running a KIPP academy along with a thousand page union contract is absurd. Half-days on Saturday? Not on your life. On call to help with homework? Are you kidding? KIPP has earned many donors, but can they afford a rubber room? Need to change a light bulb in your classroom? Page 844, paragraph 5 clearly states that you must call a union electrician. You kids sit quietly with your heads down in the dark until he arrives. It will be any day now.

KIPP has a methodology and a hard earned brand to protect, and there are plenty of other kids in other states to help. If Congress is misguided enough to pass a national card check, it will be up to individual states to ban the practice. Those that do may find themselves rewarded by the opening of some very high quality schools.

UPDATE Andy has posted a hopeful reply that the first generation of union agreement with KIPP may be benign due to the threat of closing the school, which he views as a PR nightmare. The unions seems nigh immune to bad PR to me, and the best way to get leverage is to display your willingness to use it. Let’s see how events unfold.

To read more of Jay P. Greene's Blog click here. I am also a huge fan of his book Education Myths a must read for all parents who send their children to public schools as well as taxpayers. Cathy

Great Coverage Of HB 367 and 368 Hearings.

The Concord Monitor as well as the Nashua Telegraph both reported the events without bias. Thank you to all the reporters involved.

The comments of both papers are a must read....if you can only read one set of comments you should read the comments in the Nashua Telegraph. The stereotypes and hatred to those who choose to be responsible for the education of their own children is why I fight for education freedom and why I fight to educate the general public about homeschooling.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

Home school field trip to capital Parents, children pack State House debate

By MEG HECKMAN Monitor staff
February 12, 2009 - 7:13 am


KEN WILLIAMS / Monitor staff
Abbey Kessler, 10, a home-schooler from Concord, listens to the debate at the State House on two proposed bills that would require parents of home-schoolers to sign a responsibility form and the children to take a standardized test.



Hundreds of children received quite a civics lesson yesterday when their parents brought them to the State House to protest a pair of bills that would increase state monitoring of students educated at home.

One proposal would require parents to sign a form acknowledging their responsibility to include certain subjects in their at-home curriculum. The other bill would change the way students' achievements are measured, requiring both a standardized test and a professional review of a portfolio. Currently, families may choose from several different forms of assessment.

The bills' supporters say the vast majority of New Hampshire's 4,600 home-schoolers receive fine educations, but they're worried about several hundred children whose parents might not understand the ramifications of removing their kids from traditional schools.

"This is meant to be informative, not punitive," said Mary Heath, deputy commissioner of education. "I'm speaking for the parents who aren't here today, who may not have the depth of understanding."

Much of the testimony yesterday was from parents, kids and lawmakers against the proposed changes. They said the bills unfairly target home-schooled children. Requiring more tests and paperwork, they said, would mean more work and more money for families and the school districts that supervise their efforts.

"This system is not broken," said Rep. Peter Bolster, an Alton Republican. "There is no indication that it's broken."

At least 1,000 people - teenagers, children and babies included - assembled in downtown Concord yesterday, overflowing parking garages, passing out fliers and packing Representatives Hall. The seats filled quickly as did the risers, balcony and aisles, prompting concerns about fire codes.

One member of the House Education Committee, Rep. Scott Merrick, wondered if such a showing said something about the necessity of the bills.

"I think if we take a look at the crowd, the home school community seems to be pretty well aware of the RSAs," said Merrick, a Lancaster Democrat.

Under the law as it now stands, parents who choose to home school their children must alert their school district and agree to supervision by a local superintendent, a private school principal or the state Department of Education.

Parents must provide "instruction in science, mathematics, language, government, history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the history of the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and music." Textbooks, schedules, curricula and other details are up to individual families.

Each year, parents must assemble a portfolio of their children's efforts and arrange an outside evaluation of their children's progress. Families may choose from several options. Students can take a standardized test, or a certified teacher can review the portfolio. Families may also use an alternative form of assessment if the local school district approves.

The legislation would change that, requiring both a portfolio review and a standardized test each year. The option of an alternative assessment would be eliminated, although the bills' sponsor, Rep. Judith Day, said she foresees school districts having leeway to make exceptions if circumstances prevent a child from being able to sit for an exam.

"This was not an attempt to end home schooling," said Day, a North Hampton Democrat.

While the adults parsed details of the bills and debated the differences between public and at-home education, the older children listened and took notes. Parents sometimes leaned over to whisper an explanation of a legislative term or obscure word. In the back of the hall, children spread math workbooks across risers usually reserved for the press and puzzled over subtraction.

Children wandered the hallways, inspecting antique flags and portraits, or nibbling on afternoon snacks. Outside, they scaled snowbanks and played with friends.

Jane Grady of Londonderry has educated her kids at home for 14 years. Yesterday, she disputed the premise of the bills. The home school families she's met over the years have all been well-informed about the laws governing education.

"The possibility some homeschoolers somewhere may exist that do not comply is, in my opinion, faulty grounds," she said.

What a Joy...The Halls of the State House were packed.

Union Leader reporter Tom Fahey did an outstanding unbiased story about the HB 367 and 368 hearings in Today's Union Leader.

The chairperson of the hearings Emma Rous was clearly biased against homeschoolers. This bias attitude was so blatant that many children noticed her biased attitude against them as well.

The article below states that educators said "they have a responsibility to make sure all home-schooled students are receiving an adequate education." I have seen the job that educators have done, I don't want my children to have an adequate education I want them to get an excellent education and it won't happen in public schools that are failing to educate tens of thousands of students.


Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

Home-school backers pack State House
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief


CONCORD – A crowd that state police estimated at 1,000 packed the State House yesterday to urge lawmakers to reject changes in home-schooling laws.




Educators said they have a responsibility to make sure all home-schooled students are receiving an adequate education. The proposals call for increased oversight of home-schooled students.

Parents who opposed the measures said it works against the rights they have enjoyed to educate their children in the way that best suits them.

"It definitely imposes on the freedoms we have now," said David Menard of Pittsfield, who also serves on the board of the Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire.


Menard, along with other opponents of the bill and their children, packed Representatives Hall, the visitors gallery, the hallway and the stairwell. Home schoolers pride themselves tailoring education to their children's needs, whether through teaching materials, or through trips to museums, historical sites and, like yesterday, the Legislature.

Dawn Platte of Salisbury said she came to Concord after being contacted by networks of home-school families.

"I have never had so many e-mails about home schooling as I have had on this one, from a number of groups," she said. "I think part of it is that we were just here last year on home- schooling laws."

Kara Westfall, a home-schooler from Rochester, said she opposed both bills.

"I think it will be wasteful, and divert resources from people who need it to people who don't," she said. "I feel we should be allowed to educate our children in a way we feel is appropriate."

The most widely criticized was HB 367, which sets out strict guidelines for assessing the home-school students academic progress. It would require them to submit portfolios annually, and to take standardized tests while monitored by a certified educator.

A second bill, HB 368, would require parents to sign a statement that they will abide by education laws when they notify a school district they plan to home school. Local officials would then have to provide the parent with copies of home-schooling laws, and a list of resources to help them succeed.

Deputy Education Commissioner Mary Heath said she supports the bills.

"This is meant to be informative, not punitive," she said of HB 368, which she said would serve as a useful reminder that there are state laws that apply to home-school curriculum.

Standardized tests could be as simple as the NECAP testing all public school students now take, she said.

"We have 400 parents here today, but there are 4,000 home- schooled students throughout our state. We are responsible for all those children," she said.

Rep. Nancy Elliot, R-Merrimack, said the bill is not needed.

"Home-schooled students are excelling at a very high rate, there is no doubt about that," she said.

Rep. Peter Bolster, R-Alton, said HB 367 may require local district to add staff to keep up with home-schooled students.

"The system is not broken," he said. "Please, leave these people alone."

The sponsor of the two bills, Rep. Judith Day, D-North Hampton, said she filed the bills to make sure all home educators are aware of state laws, and to be sure the state meets its obligation to educate all children.

Another Testimony From the House Bill 367 and 368 Hearings.

The following testimony is from Jim Forsythe he gave up his speaking position to the attorney Mike Donnelly from the Home School Legal Defense Association. Thank you Jim and Mike for your efforts in fighting for homeschooling freedoms.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

Good afternoon, I’m Dr Jim Forsythe from Strafford, NH. I’m a Professor at UNH, while my wife teaches a combination of community college classes and public school courses through the new Virtual Charter school. We’ve homeschooled our two children for seven years now.



I’m opposed to HB 367 for a myriad of reasons, many of which have been covered. But my prime opposition to this bill is that it violates the very ideals that this State, and this country were founded upon. The very first article in the NH Constitution reads “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”

In a free society, government is supposed to be accountable to the people, not the other way around. Testing within the public school system is legitimate since it is a mechanism for making sure the money taxpayers have spent has shown results. It’s a way to make the schools accountable to the people. But no taxpayer money is spent on a homeschool program. In fact homeschoolers pay taxes for schools they don’t use, despite the fact that they generally give up one income. This bill would perversely force these families to become accountable to the government, even more so than they are already are.

The legislature of N.H. is constitutionally obligated to govern by consent. By the large turnout today, I think it is safe to say that homeschoolers in NH are unwilling to consent to HB 367. I urge you to ITL this bill and begin to examine ways that you can provide more freedoms to the homeschooling community, not less.

Jim Forsythe, PhD

Jim's HB 367 Testimony

Jim presented the following Testimony at the HB 367 Hearing.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.


Homeschooling is the execution of a most basic parental right - to direct the upbringing of children as we see fit. HB367 usurps this innate parental authority in return for no tangible benefit whatsoever.



In the years since my wife and I began to educate our children, I have never once met any parent whose homeschooling motivation was to provide a public school style education. Beneficial deviation from the "one size fits none" approach (of public ed) is a central tenet of home education. Relegating control of homeschooling to the superintendents as HB367 prescribes denies parents the freedom they require, and destroys the very soul of homeschooling. Sadly, I suspect this may be part of the true purpose of HB367, for all other explanations fall flat.

Being compelled to place our childrens' future in the hands of government education is particularly egregious in our situation. The town of Croydon sends students in grades 4-12 to the neighboring Newport school system. Newport Middle High School is entering its sixth year of failing to make AYP in mathematics and third year of AYP failure in literacy. Newport Middle High School does not even offer instruction in Calculus and is credibly reputed to suffer from serious drug problems.

My wife holds a Master's degree in Audiology and has given up a lucrative career to provide our children every possible advantage. I was a three year Doctoral student of Nuclear Engineering. Are we to blindly accept that Newport's "credentialed educators", unable to teach a 300-year old mathematics system or basic literacy, are somehow qualified to judge our effectiveness?

Supporters of HB367 usually respond that there are "some people" who "abuse" homeschooling, yet we never seem to get specifics. In a free society, government must never curtail freedom without justification. Proponents of HB367 seek to erode our freedoms, and thus bear two heavy burdens. They must prove that a significant problem exists, and they must prove that their remedy is both just and effective. They can do neither, and they don't seem too interested in trying.

Unable or unwilling to prove their case, the architects of HB367 forfeit their claims on our liberty. For this reason and for the sake of our children, please reject HB367.

Jim Peschke

Income Tax Bill

Jim wrote the following piece regarding HB 583. CNHT also has a piece on the bill at their website.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

Special interest groups have fired another shot across our bow in the form of HB583. The brashness of this proposal, a 5% income tax for "educational adequacy" and absorbing teachers into the protected class of state employees, should help identify this plan for what it truly is; a power and money grab by the privileged few at the expense of taxpayers.



At the statewide legislative forums, several citizens expressed skepticism about "educational adequacy" being little more than a front for an income tax and an expansion of the education industrial complex. Such concerns were met with derision and scorn, yet the fact that we're here today demonstrates beyond a doubt that these concerns were in fact justified.

The Supreme Court made it clear in their Claremont ruling that they are not willing to protect us from this onslaught. We look to you, the legislature, as our last line of defense. The only bright side to an income tax is that 10% of the people I worked with in December will remain unaffected, as they no longer shoulder the burden of income. This nationwide employment downturn makes increased state spending particularly offensive.

The folly of solving a manufactured education crisis through increased taxation is reminiscent of the purses my mother carried when I was young. Each year she bought a larger purse hoping it would hold enough. She finally learned that less baggage, not larger purses, was the answer.

Many lawmakers and our Governor have already pledged to protect us from broadbased taxes, because they understand that the purse will never be big enough. To the undecided, please find it within yourselves to resist the pressure to expand government bloat during the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. Prudence demands that we consign HB583 and anything like it to the dustbin of history.

Jim Peschke

Another News Source Reporting On Judith Day's Attack on Homeschoolers

The following piece appeared at Good News Daily.Net, kind of ironic is it not?

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.

Homeschool Freedom Under Fire in New Hampshire

(EP News)—New Hampshire Rep. Judith Day is the sole sponsor of legislation that would radically rewrite the testing and assessment portion of the New Hampshire homeschool law. “If passed, New Hampshire would have one of the most restrictive homeschool laws in the nation,” said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney for Home School Legal Defense Association.



Over the past few years increasing numbers of parents have been turning to homeschooling to raise their children. Homeschoolers are thriving since all the research shows that homeschoolers significantly outperform their peers on standardized tests.


Furthermore, studies show there is no correlation between increased regulation and homeschool students’ performance, which is why most states have removed their assessment and testing requirements.

The current New Hampshire law is already more burdensome than most states. In addition to an annual notice homeschoolers must provide an annual statement of academic progress and maintain two years of records and instructional materials. The proposed law would require all homeschoolers to take both a test, and to submit to a portfolio evaluation by a “credentialed educator.” It then places subjective authority in the hands of a superintendent or non- public school principle to terminate a family’s homeschool program.

“It’s amazing that New Hampshire is considering these kinds of additional restrictions when it already requires parents to provide annual assessments,” said Donnelly. “This new law is unnecessary. It would simply waste taxpayers’ money and parents’ time,” he added.

Hearings are scheduled for Feb. 11 in Concord, New Hampshire.