Best Valedictorian speech I have ever heard.
I do hope you will take to the time to listen.
Cathy
Friday, October 5, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Educational Freedom
"Men had better be without education than be
educated by their rulers; for their education is but the mere breaking
in of the steer to the yoke; the mere discipline of the hunting dog,
which, by dint of severity, is made to forego the strongest
impulse of his nature, and instead of devouring his prey, to hasten
with it to the feet of his master" -- Thomas Hodgskin
Cathy Peschke
Cathy Peschke
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Equality
At the school board meeting the other night I heard a mother use the term equal. I believe it was we need to make things equal for everyone. Clearly she does not know the distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Equal and equality are words that have come to repulse me like green energy, global warming, sustainable, etc. These are words used by progressives to control man.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes about equality.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Aristotle
"No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. " George Orwell
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Abraham Lincoln
"The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom." Lord Acton
"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."- Milton Friedman
Cathy Peschke, Homeschooling Mom of Two married to a brilliant and great husband.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes about equality.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Aristotle
"No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. " George Orwell
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Abraham Lincoln
"The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom." Lord Acton
"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."- Milton Friedman
Cathy Peschke, Homeschooling Mom of Two married to a brilliant and great husband.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Special School Board Meeting
I would like to sum up today's special school board meeting, the Oligarchy known as SAU 43 and my feeling for the school district in general.
Public Schools = Government Schools = Socialized Education They exist to serve the employees and the State not the students. Public schools would not exist if they were meant to serve the student.
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing.The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, andevery election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."-- H. L. Mencken(1880-1956) American Journalist,
Cathy Peschke
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Algebra Is Needed!
The following post is in response to a post against teaching algebra in New York Times. The post below is written by Jim Peschke.
Algebra is needed!
I've often lamented the lack of a Calculus program at some high schools. My reasoning, challenged by the educational establishment, is that Calculus is fundamental and should be at least offered if not mandatory.
While educators weigh the merits of high school Calculus and Latin, some have taken the discussion to a new low. Queens College professor Andrew Hacker opines in the New York Times that mandatory Algebra in high school is harmful and should be eliminated. To all who labor for educational excellence, this proposal feels like conceding the space race to the Soviets a year after Apollo 11.
Without listing the many obvious flaws in Hacker's plan, let's look at the less "You wanna do WHAT?!?" reasons that Algebra must stay.
Algebra is not just another level of math; it is a fundamental shift in thinking from the concrete to the abstract. Such ascendency of thought is essential to the development of the whole child and is not limited to mathematics. Far from being difficult, Algebra is one of the easiest tools to bridge this gap.
Other tools of abstract instruction exist. Philosophy and Theology first come to mind, but these have their own limitations. Either subject covered in depth requires broad experience and understanding often unavailable to the ninth grader. Both have limited professional application, are largely untestable and too subjective to avoid the political malfeasance (ie. indoctrination) rampant in government schools.
Could one actually teach Philosophy in a government school without the usual leftist tripe rearing its ugly head? Given the current state of affairs, any such attempt would replace enlightened open-minded abstract discourse with a descent into political doctrine, pseudoscience, and groupthink. The mere thought of teaching Theology in a government school is the secular version of heresy. There is a reason these subjects thrive best in a college setting.
Algebra forges abstract thought in a way that students can grasp and teachers can measure. Students cannot pull the wool over the teacher's eyes with the usual warm fuzzy "Its how I feel" or "My heart tells me so" nonsense abundant in less regimented courses. If a student fails to grasp the concepts of Algebra, this shortcoming can be exposed and corrected.
If this is Mr. Hacker's idea of "too difficult", too bad. We don't send our children to school to "follow their heart" like some sobbing American Idol contestant leaving the stage for the last time. We send them to school to learn.
Oh and by the way, Algebra has that not-so-minor virtue of being useful.
No discussion of the merits of Algebra can avoid the anecdotal "I've never needed Algebra" tales. Most of us who made it through Algebra understand the scientific method well enough to reject anecdotal evidence. These stories also miss the point; of course it is possible to get by without Algebra, but at what cost?
Cross country travel by horseback is possible, but how many of us choose this option? It sounds great if you've never heard of cars, planes, or trains. Leonardo DaVinci could have done wonders with AutoCAD, but he never missed having it. Galileo could have saved a great deal of time if he had a pocket calculator, but he still advanced astronomy.
Silly? Perhaps, but it puts to light the obvious "You don't know what you're missing" problem. Those who never grasped the power of Algebra are inherently the least capable of appreciating its value. Such appreciation itself is part of the learning experience.
Calls for the elimination of Algebra showcase the woeful inadequacy of the American K-12 educational system. These naive protestations are an ineloquent form of shooting the messenger. Our duty as a society is to expose and correct these shortcomings rather than mask them by dumbing down an already anemic course load.
Algebra is needed!
I've often lamented the lack of a Calculus program at some high schools. My reasoning, challenged by the educational establishment, is that Calculus is fundamental and should be at least offered if not mandatory.
While educators weigh the merits of high school Calculus and Latin, some have taken the discussion to a new low. Queens College professor Andrew Hacker opines in the New York Times that mandatory Algebra in high school is harmful and should be eliminated. To all who labor for educational excellence, this proposal feels like conceding the space race to the Soviets a year after Apollo 11.
Without listing the many obvious flaws in Hacker's plan, let's look at the less "You wanna do WHAT?!?" reasons that Algebra must stay.
Algebra is not just another level of math; it is a fundamental shift in thinking from the concrete to the abstract. Such ascendency of thought is essential to the development of the whole child and is not limited to mathematics. Far from being difficult, Algebra is one of the easiest tools to bridge this gap.
Other tools of abstract instruction exist. Philosophy and Theology first come to mind, but these have their own limitations. Either subject covered in depth requires broad experience and understanding often unavailable to the ninth grader. Both have limited professional application, are largely untestable and too subjective to avoid the political malfeasance (ie. indoctrination) rampant in government schools.
Could one actually teach Philosophy in a government school without the usual leftist tripe rearing its ugly head? Given the current state of affairs, any such attempt would replace enlightened open-minded abstract discourse with a descent into political doctrine, pseudoscience, and groupthink. The mere thought of teaching Theology in a government school is the secular version of heresy. There is a reason these subjects thrive best in a college setting.
Algebra forges abstract thought in a way that students can grasp and teachers can measure. Students cannot pull the wool over the teacher's eyes with the usual warm fuzzy "Its how I feel" or "My heart tells me so" nonsense abundant in less regimented courses. If a student fails to grasp the concepts of Algebra, this shortcoming can be exposed and corrected.
If this is Mr. Hacker's idea of "too difficult", too bad. We don't send our children to school to "follow their heart" like some sobbing American Idol contestant leaving the stage for the last time. We send them to school to learn.
Oh and by the way, Algebra has that not-so-minor virtue of being useful.
No discussion of the merits of Algebra can avoid the anecdotal "I've never needed Algebra" tales. Most of us who made it through Algebra understand the scientific method well enough to reject anecdotal evidence. These stories also miss the point; of course it is possible to get by without Algebra, but at what cost?
Cross country travel by horseback is possible, but how many of us choose this option? It sounds great if you've never heard of cars, planes, or trains. Leonardo DaVinci could have done wonders with AutoCAD, but he never missed having it. Galileo could have saved a great deal of time if he had a pocket calculator, but he still advanced astronomy.
Silly? Perhaps, but it puts to light the obvious "You don't know what you're missing" problem. Those who never grasped the power of Algebra are inherently the least capable of appreciating its value. Such appreciation itself is part of the learning experience.
Calls for the elimination of Algebra showcase the woeful inadequacy of the American K-12 educational system. These naive protestations are an ineloquent form of shooting the messenger. Our duty as a society is to expose and correct these shortcomings rather than mask them by dumbing down an already anemic course load.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Can't we Just Focus on Reading, Writing and Math?
We can not even get children to read, write or perform math at grade appropriate level, lets get that down first before we start teaching about orgasms. The NEA has some very messed up priorities.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Excerpt: Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed
Volume 14, Number 12
March 3, 2011
"Schools need to teach about orgasms" says NEA to UN
By Lauren Funk
NEW YORK, March 3 (C-FAM) Graphic sex education for youth is the new battleground at the UN, as evidenced by side events during the past week at the Commission on the Status of Women.
The theme of this year’s CSW is the “access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.” While delegates are busy negotiating resolutions and outcome documents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN organizations campaign for the installation of socially radical curriculums in Africa and America alike.
“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.
Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.” “Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,” she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”
A Belgian panelist at the same event explained how necessary it was to have government support when educating about anti-discrimination issues. He claimed that the “positive, pro-LGBT policies in Belgian schools are a direct consequence of liberal and open-minded legislation in Belgium,” and went on to stress the importance of states in providing relevant materials for students and schoolteachers. He also held up Belgium’s “gender in the blender” programs, which are discussion-based programs for Belgian teachers who want to discuss gender and transgender issues in their courses, as a model for other nations who wished to encourage their teachers to address these topics.
The UN system was also advocating for the sexualization of youth at this year’s CSW. A panel sponsored in part by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) advocated for “comprehensive sex education” not only as a tool to combat “gender oppression,” but also as the key to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals. The panelists presented the highly controversial UNESCO guidelines on Sex Education, as well as a new IPPF-sponsored curriculum as the gold standard for comprehensive sex education. Both curriculums promote a liberal approach to sex, approve of masturbation, and expose children to graphic content in their youngest years. The panelists also insisted that these programs be implemented in schools in order to reach as many students as possible, and they also recommended they start as soon as possible, given the fact that many girls in developing countries leave school before the age of sixteen.
Although most of the side events during CSW are not sponsored by governments and attract few delegates, the NGOs who produce the events are UN lobbyists – which means that the agendas on display during this year’s CSW will influence UN policy in the near future.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Excerpt: Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed
Volume 14, Number 12
March 3, 2011
"Schools need to teach about orgasms" says NEA to UN
By Lauren Funk
NEW YORK, March 3 (C-FAM) Graphic sex education for youth is the new battleground at the UN, as evidenced by side events during the past week at the Commission on the Status of Women.
The theme of this year’s CSW is the “access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.” While delegates are busy negotiating resolutions and outcome documents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN organizations campaign for the installation of socially radical curriculums in Africa and America alike.
“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.
Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.” “Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,” she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”
A Belgian panelist at the same event explained how necessary it was to have government support when educating about anti-discrimination issues. He claimed that the “positive, pro-LGBT policies in Belgian schools are a direct consequence of liberal and open-minded legislation in Belgium,” and went on to stress the importance of states in providing relevant materials for students and schoolteachers. He also held up Belgium’s “gender in the blender” programs, which are discussion-based programs for Belgian teachers who want to discuss gender and transgender issues in their courses, as a model for other nations who wished to encourage their teachers to address these topics.
The UN system was also advocating for the sexualization of youth at this year’s CSW. A panel sponsored in part by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) advocated for “comprehensive sex education” not only as a tool to combat “gender oppression,” but also as the key to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals. The panelists presented the highly controversial UNESCO guidelines on Sex Education, as well as a new IPPF-sponsored curriculum as the gold standard for comprehensive sex education. Both curriculums promote a liberal approach to sex, approve of masturbation, and expose children to graphic content in their youngest years. The panelists also insisted that these programs be implemented in schools in order to reach as many students as possible, and they also recommended they start as soon as possible, given the fact that many girls in developing countries leave school before the age of sixteen.
Although most of the side events during CSW are not sponsored by governments and attract few delegates, the NGOs who produce the events are UN lobbyists – which means that the agendas on display during this year’s CSW will influence UN policy in the near future.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Pink Elephant
The Pink Elephant is not only in New Hampshire but in Illinois too. The Pink Elephant is here in New Hampshire as well but it is CCeNH and HSLDA.
The following piece appears on ThatMom.com.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
This plea to the homeschooling families in Illinois was sent to me and I am sharing it with you with her permission. Terri is a long time homeschooling mom and I believe she is speaking for the majority of homeschooling families in our state who do not want to be represented by those who have named themselves leaders and spokespersons for all homeschoolers. I heartily agree with her. We need to be sure our heads aren’t in the sand!!!
Dear Karen:
The Pink Elephant
I have been doing a lot of thinking since Thursday, and I may get rode out of town on a rail here, but I think the pink elephant in the room needs to be addressed. I am very, very concerned about those who are claiming to have a seat at the table with Senator Maloney, to be speaking on the behalf of all home schooling families in this state. Listening to that 2 hour interview Thursday* only confirmed my fears. I will admit, I am uncomfortable with IFI, ICHE, HSLDA, or even HOUSE representing my interest in any talks or negotiations in the scope of home schooling. David Smith proved Thursday that home schooling rights of parents is not IFI’s main focus. I feel that those rights will be lost in IFI’s agenda at that table.
Mr. Smith was given a perfect opportunity Thursday to take a firm stand against the registration/regulation of all home school students; to speak about SB 136 and what it meant for all home school students; to educate people on how these tactics have been implemented in other states and the effect that it had on homeschoolers in those other states. He chose not to do this. Instead, he and Laurie Higgins chose to spend a whole hour addressing IFI’s stand against homosexuality and liberal propaganda in the public school system. Quite frankly, it left me yelling at my computer “WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH REGISTERING/REGULATING HOMESCHOOLERS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS?!” Was he there to speak about the threat hanging over the head of every homeschooling family in Illinois or to further IFI’s agenda?
This led me to do some digging and I am frightened by what I found:
IFI is on a national list of hate groups? Of course I understand who drew up that list and I support IFI’s right to speak out for or against any issue they choose to, but the fact of the matter is that this is an “honor” which our opponents can throw out in front of the liberal media to bury us with. The last thing that we need is to be further labeled as a bunch of hateful, religious zealots who are “sheltering our children” (David Smith said something similar to this in that interview, btw) from the real world. They seemed unable to stay on track and focus on the rights of homeschooling throughout that interview. The fact that David Smith has bragged about knowing Senator Maloney personally (they shared office space before David started with IFI) and is working in secret with Maloney doesn’t instill a lot of my trust in him. IFI is heavily involved in a number of hot-button social issues. (I happen to agree with most of those stances.) To their followers, this is fine, but to others who do not share their beliefs, like a number of Democrat Legislators, it is not. Will they take the time to focus only on the home school issue? The fact that they could not give an interview on the subject of homeschooling without sidetracking the conversation for an entire hour to their anti-gay agenda instills very little of my confidence in this group’s ability to represent all home schooling families.
HSLDA is another concern. I have my own opinions on HSLDA from my personal experience with them. When you visit the HSLDA website, you can clearly see their own religious agenda. Google them and you will find their anti-gay stances. They also seem to be much more comfortable representing families that use a set curriculum, preferably one that they approve of. Where does that leave the unschoolers and the more eclectic and free spirited members of our community? I am all for HSLDA coming in and representing their clients in individual cases, even a group of their members in a case, but to come into a state and present themselves as “the” authority to speak on behalf of all homeschooling families is a bit much. They have a history of doing this on a national level as well. They completely refused to listen to anything that anyone outside of their closed circle has to say. I was fighting with them tooth and nail the entire two weeks leading up to the hearing. Despite the fact that I sent them emails from State Senators urging us to contact every member on the Education Committee, regardless of where you live, HSLDA maintained their position that only those who lived in their district should contact them. Furthermore, they discouraged people outside of Maloney’s district to contact him and from contacting their own State Senators if they were not on that committee. I can only say thankfully a large number of people either didn’t get the message or chose to ignore it! Did Scott Woodruff deliver a good testimony during that hearing? From all that I have heard, I think it was adequate. The thing that truly concerns me is the fact that they are still telling their members that this is over, we won, it is time celebrate. They, along with IFI, ICHE, and HOUSE are intentionally discouraging people from remaining active in this fight. Why are they doing this? While I was digging on the internet, I found a couple of interesting articles with HSLDA as the subject. One that I found similar to our situation is this one: http://reliableanswers.com/hs/law/honda_hslda.asp.
This well written and thought-out blog entry about HSLDA’s involvement with the HoNDA legislation definitely made me stop and think: http://homeschoolcommunity.blogspot.com/.
According to this, they were brokering a deal to make themselves the main entity to issue “home school diplomas”, diplomas that would be required for anyone who was home schooled entering the military. Some of the other things that I read, tying HLSDA with the military, if true, were very troubling.
ICHE is another matter. While I don’t agree with their religious doctrine or theology, I will support their right to practice any religion they choose to practice. Are they willing to say the same of others? Would they fight as hard for Catholic families as they do for their member churches? I get very uneasy when one group of Christians decides that another group of Christians is not Christian enough. Does anyone have any idea of just how many members this group has? I can only find 700 or so on their Facebook page. Even at 3,000 students, that is still only around 5% of the estimated home schooled students in this state. Very presumptuous of them to go and negotiate with Maloney on behalf of every home schooling family in the state, the majority of which do not follow their religious doctrine. Their idea of “true home schooling” scares me. I know that my family and I certainly do not qualify as “Christian” or “Godly” under their interpretation of the Scripture. I think I would be less afraid to stand before Christ Himself and answer for the way I live my life, rather than to have to stand before one of their board of elders. That is the true beauty of the freedom in living under the blood of Christ rather than under the laws of man. Sorry, I digress.
HOUSE was the one group that I had no knowledge of until the hearing. I have been home schooling for 12 years and this was the first that I had ever heard of them. I will say that a comment made by Dorothy Werner concerns me; she thinks that the truancy laws need to be more stringent. More stringent for whom? Also they state on their website that daytime curfews are “there to protect us, not to threaten us.” What? They go on to advise that children carry a home school I.D. card and cell phone in case they are stopped and questioned by the police. Well, why don’t we just sew big red “H”s on our children’s jackets to avoid having them stopped and questioned at all?! I just recently fought down a daytime curfew in our county seat. This was a bad law and it was meant to protect no one; only to give more power and authority to the ROE and local police. There was no exemption for home schooled students. None. So carrying an I.D. would have done little good in keeping my children from being charged with a petty offense and fined up to $100 for being in public, even on the roadways, during school hours. Even with an exemption, once these new daytime curfews and new truancy laws are put into place, our children can be stopped and question, often being presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is one very important issue that I vehemently disagree with HOUSE on.
IFI, ICHE and HLSDA seem to be working in unison to monopolize this whole process. As my papa used to say, “They are like a bucket of snakes. You reach in to pull one out and they are so inter-twined that it is hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.” All three of these groups have a highly religious agenda and that deeply concerns me. What concerns me even more about these three groups is that they seem to require a blind loyalty from their members, without question.
Most homeschoolers are independent and the range of reasons that they choose to home school is endless. The majority of people do not choose to home school for religious reasons, and yet here we have 3 very religious organizations pushing their way to the table to negotiate with the enemy. And yes, I do consider Senator Maloney and his like the enemy. They are hoping to turn him into the homeschooler’s biggest ally in Springfield? That shows a political naiveté that should exclude them from even being at the negotiation table. What is the purpose of these meetings anyway? There is NOTHING to negotiate. What are they hoping to get out of these meetings? Maybe something along the lines of what Julie Kleinke Durr has proposed; to set up a governing board, a non-education board as other states have, to oversee regulations imposed on homeschoolers by the State of Illinois, with them having guaranteed seats of authority on the board? Remember, they have already appointed themselvs the leaders of homeschooling in Illinois. One of the Senators at the hearing assumed that HSLDA knew where all the homeschoolers in Illinois were. Of course, when you set yourself up as the representative for an entire community, I can understand how she could have easily made that assumption. Really, is this what we are fighting for? To answer to some other authority on how we are allowed to educate our children? To report to them? To have them approve which curriculum can be used? Or maybe to decide what qualifies a parent to educate their own children? Is a board made up of IFI, HSLDA, ICHE and HOUSE members a better alternative to answering to the State Board of Education or the ROE? I am sure to their 2000-3000 members it would be. Why would they mind, they are already under their authority. However, I don’t think that the other 12,000 to 20,000 homeschooling families would think it any different than answering to the government. I am willing to wager that most who do not share these groups’ theology would rather be put under the authority of the government if given a choice.
I will sum this all up. What is the true agenda of IFI, HSLDA, and ICHE? Is it to fight registration/regulation/restrictions on homeschoolers in this state or to furthering their own agendas? I think it is a fair question, especially after hearing that interview, receiving their emails (all three sending out basically the same exact email to counter the Illinois Homeschool PAC and its efforts and then to encourage each of their members to join the two sister groups), and seeing how they manipulated the circumstances to put only themselves and their spokespeople on the front row at the education hearing. I have to ask again, what is there to negotiate with Maloney about? I would like to ask those at IFI if any of them are okay with testing home schooling students. I would like to ask the folks at HOUSE if any of them are okay with imposing daytime curfew on all Illinois homeschoolers to help the public schools reign in their dropouts and truants. Should our home schooling students have their freedoms limited because Regional Superintendents and Truant Officers are incapable of doing the job they are being paid to do? I would like to ask the attorneys at HSLDA if they will protect the rights of those parents who choose to unschool their children and also would they waive their fees for members in Illinois for 2 years after any deal they broker goes into effect? I would like to ask those in authority at ICHE if they can leave their religious beliefs out of the meetings. Will they be able to respect an atheist’s right to home school? How about a gay couple’s? Remember, these are the people who put themselves in a place to negotiate for all of us.
Now back to the pink elephant I spoke of before. Who exactly decided that these handful of organizations where the homeschooling “leaders” or “experts” and had the right to speak on everyone’s behalf? And even though these organizations are highly respected by their members, will they be able to represent all the homeschooling families equally; without prejudice and without judging and forsaking those who do not share their religious beliefs? Will they admit that they are the minority in the homeschooling community in this state? Will they only focus on the home school issue and be willing to leave their groups’ agendas at the door? Will they agree to be transparent, open and honest with everyone who could be affected by their actions, not just their groups’ members? Will they publically announce who will be representing them in these meetings with Maloney and give the public their bios so that all parties can let it be known whether or not these organizations are representing them? Will they let the public know when and where these meetings will be held? Out of respect for every homeschooling parent throughout this state, I hope that they will do all the above.
Thank you,
Terri Koyne
Macoupin County, Illinois
The following piece appears on ThatMom.com.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
This plea to the homeschooling families in Illinois was sent to me and I am sharing it with you with her permission. Terri is a long time homeschooling mom and I believe she is speaking for the majority of homeschooling families in our state who do not want to be represented by those who have named themselves leaders and spokespersons for all homeschoolers. I heartily agree with her. We need to be sure our heads aren’t in the sand!!!
Dear Karen:
The Pink Elephant
I have been doing a lot of thinking since Thursday, and I may get rode out of town on a rail here, but I think the pink elephant in the room needs to be addressed. I am very, very concerned about those who are claiming to have a seat at the table with Senator Maloney, to be speaking on the behalf of all home schooling families in this state. Listening to that 2 hour interview Thursday* only confirmed my fears. I will admit, I am uncomfortable with IFI, ICHE, HSLDA, or even HOUSE representing my interest in any talks or negotiations in the scope of home schooling. David Smith proved Thursday that home schooling rights of parents is not IFI’s main focus. I feel that those rights will be lost in IFI’s agenda at that table.
Mr. Smith was given a perfect opportunity Thursday to take a firm stand against the registration/regulation of all home school students; to speak about SB 136 and what it meant for all home school students; to educate people on how these tactics have been implemented in other states and the effect that it had on homeschoolers in those other states. He chose not to do this. Instead, he and Laurie Higgins chose to spend a whole hour addressing IFI’s stand against homosexuality and liberal propaganda in the public school system. Quite frankly, it left me yelling at my computer “WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH REGISTERING/REGULATING HOMESCHOOLERS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS?!” Was he there to speak about the threat hanging over the head of every homeschooling family in Illinois or to further IFI’s agenda?
This led me to do some digging and I am frightened by what I found:
IFI is on a national list of hate groups? Of course I understand who drew up that list and I support IFI’s right to speak out for or against any issue they choose to, but the fact of the matter is that this is an “honor” which our opponents can throw out in front of the liberal media to bury us with. The last thing that we need is to be further labeled as a bunch of hateful, religious zealots who are “sheltering our children” (David Smith said something similar to this in that interview, btw) from the real world. They seemed unable to stay on track and focus on the rights of homeschooling throughout that interview. The fact that David Smith has bragged about knowing Senator Maloney personally (they shared office space before David started with IFI) and is working in secret with Maloney doesn’t instill a lot of my trust in him. IFI is heavily involved in a number of hot-button social issues. (I happen to agree with most of those stances.) To their followers, this is fine, but to others who do not share their beliefs, like a number of Democrat Legislators, it is not. Will they take the time to focus only on the home school issue? The fact that they could not give an interview on the subject of homeschooling without sidetracking the conversation for an entire hour to their anti-gay agenda instills very little of my confidence in this group’s ability to represent all home schooling families.
HSLDA is another concern. I have my own opinions on HSLDA from my personal experience with them. When you visit the HSLDA website, you can clearly see their own religious agenda. Google them and you will find their anti-gay stances. They also seem to be much more comfortable representing families that use a set curriculum, preferably one that they approve of. Where does that leave the unschoolers and the more eclectic and free spirited members of our community? I am all for HSLDA coming in and representing their clients in individual cases, even a group of their members in a case, but to come into a state and present themselves as “the” authority to speak on behalf of all homeschooling families is a bit much. They have a history of doing this on a national level as well. They completely refused to listen to anything that anyone outside of their closed circle has to say. I was fighting with them tooth and nail the entire two weeks leading up to the hearing. Despite the fact that I sent them emails from State Senators urging us to contact every member on the Education Committee, regardless of where you live, HSLDA maintained their position that only those who lived in their district should contact them. Furthermore, they discouraged people outside of Maloney’s district to contact him and from contacting their own State Senators if they were not on that committee. I can only say thankfully a large number of people either didn’t get the message or chose to ignore it! Did Scott Woodruff deliver a good testimony during that hearing? From all that I have heard, I think it was adequate. The thing that truly concerns me is the fact that they are still telling their members that this is over, we won, it is time celebrate. They, along with IFI, ICHE, and HOUSE are intentionally discouraging people from remaining active in this fight. Why are they doing this? While I was digging on the internet, I found a couple of interesting articles with HSLDA as the subject. One that I found similar to our situation is this one: http://reliableanswers.com/hs/law/honda_hslda.asp.
This well written and thought-out blog entry about HSLDA’s involvement with the HoNDA legislation definitely made me stop and think: http://homeschoolcommunity.blogspot.com/.
According to this, they were brokering a deal to make themselves the main entity to issue “home school diplomas”, diplomas that would be required for anyone who was home schooled entering the military. Some of the other things that I read, tying HLSDA with the military, if true, were very troubling.
ICHE is another matter. While I don’t agree with their religious doctrine or theology, I will support their right to practice any religion they choose to practice. Are they willing to say the same of others? Would they fight as hard for Catholic families as they do for their member churches? I get very uneasy when one group of Christians decides that another group of Christians is not Christian enough. Does anyone have any idea of just how many members this group has? I can only find 700 or so on their Facebook page. Even at 3,000 students, that is still only around 5% of the estimated home schooled students in this state. Very presumptuous of them to go and negotiate with Maloney on behalf of every home schooling family in the state, the majority of which do not follow their religious doctrine. Their idea of “true home schooling” scares me. I know that my family and I certainly do not qualify as “Christian” or “Godly” under their interpretation of the Scripture. I think I would be less afraid to stand before Christ Himself and answer for the way I live my life, rather than to have to stand before one of their board of elders. That is the true beauty of the freedom in living under the blood of Christ rather than under the laws of man. Sorry, I digress.
HOUSE was the one group that I had no knowledge of until the hearing. I have been home schooling for 12 years and this was the first that I had ever heard of them. I will say that a comment made by Dorothy Werner concerns me; she thinks that the truancy laws need to be more stringent. More stringent for whom? Also they state on their website that daytime curfews are “there to protect us, not to threaten us.” What? They go on to advise that children carry a home school I.D. card and cell phone in case they are stopped and questioned by the police. Well, why don’t we just sew big red “H”s on our children’s jackets to avoid having them stopped and questioned at all?! I just recently fought down a daytime curfew in our county seat. This was a bad law and it was meant to protect no one; only to give more power and authority to the ROE and local police. There was no exemption for home schooled students. None. So carrying an I.D. would have done little good in keeping my children from being charged with a petty offense and fined up to $100 for being in public, even on the roadways, during school hours. Even with an exemption, once these new daytime curfews and new truancy laws are put into place, our children can be stopped and question, often being presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is one very important issue that I vehemently disagree with HOUSE on.
IFI, ICHE and HLSDA seem to be working in unison to monopolize this whole process. As my papa used to say, “They are like a bucket of snakes. You reach in to pull one out and they are so inter-twined that it is hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.” All three of these groups have a highly religious agenda and that deeply concerns me. What concerns me even more about these three groups is that they seem to require a blind loyalty from their members, without question.
Most homeschoolers are independent and the range of reasons that they choose to home school is endless. The majority of people do not choose to home school for religious reasons, and yet here we have 3 very religious organizations pushing their way to the table to negotiate with the enemy. And yes, I do consider Senator Maloney and his like the enemy. They are hoping to turn him into the homeschooler’s biggest ally in Springfield? That shows a political naiveté that should exclude them from even being at the negotiation table. What is the purpose of these meetings anyway? There is NOTHING to negotiate. What are they hoping to get out of these meetings? Maybe something along the lines of what Julie Kleinke Durr has proposed; to set up a governing board, a non-education board as other states have, to oversee regulations imposed on homeschoolers by the State of Illinois, with them having guaranteed seats of authority on the board? Remember, they have already appointed themselvs the leaders of homeschooling in Illinois. One of the Senators at the hearing assumed that HSLDA knew where all the homeschoolers in Illinois were. Of course, when you set yourself up as the representative for an entire community, I can understand how she could have easily made that assumption. Really, is this what we are fighting for? To answer to some other authority on how we are allowed to educate our children? To report to them? To have them approve which curriculum can be used? Or maybe to decide what qualifies a parent to educate their own children? Is a board made up of IFI, HSLDA, ICHE and HOUSE members a better alternative to answering to the State Board of Education or the ROE? I am sure to their 2000-3000 members it would be. Why would they mind, they are already under their authority. However, I don’t think that the other 12,000 to 20,000 homeschooling families would think it any different than answering to the government. I am willing to wager that most who do not share these groups’ theology would rather be put under the authority of the government if given a choice.
I will sum this all up. What is the true agenda of IFI, HSLDA, and ICHE? Is it to fight registration/regulation/restrictions on homeschoolers in this state or to furthering their own agendas? I think it is a fair question, especially after hearing that interview, receiving their emails (all three sending out basically the same exact email to counter the Illinois Homeschool PAC and its efforts and then to encourage each of their members to join the two sister groups), and seeing how they manipulated the circumstances to put only themselves and their spokespeople on the front row at the education hearing. I have to ask again, what is there to negotiate with Maloney about? I would like to ask those at IFI if any of them are okay with testing home schooling students. I would like to ask the folks at HOUSE if any of them are okay with imposing daytime curfew on all Illinois homeschoolers to help the public schools reign in their dropouts and truants. Should our home schooling students have their freedoms limited because Regional Superintendents and Truant Officers are incapable of doing the job they are being paid to do? I would like to ask the attorneys at HSLDA if they will protect the rights of those parents who choose to unschool their children and also would they waive their fees for members in Illinois for 2 years after any deal they broker goes into effect? I would like to ask those in authority at ICHE if they can leave their religious beliefs out of the meetings. Will they be able to respect an atheist’s right to home school? How about a gay couple’s? Remember, these are the people who put themselves in a place to negotiate for all of us.
Now back to the pink elephant I spoke of before. Who exactly decided that these handful of organizations where the homeschooling “leaders” or “experts” and had the right to speak on everyone’s behalf? And even though these organizations are highly respected by their members, will they be able to represent all the homeschooling families equally; without prejudice and without judging and forsaking those who do not share their religious beliefs? Will they admit that they are the minority in the homeschooling community in this state? Will they only focus on the home school issue and be willing to leave their groups’ agendas at the door? Will they agree to be transparent, open and honest with everyone who could be affected by their actions, not just their groups’ members? Will they publically announce who will be representing them in these meetings with Maloney and give the public their bios so that all parties can let it be known whether or not these organizations are representing them? Will they let the public know when and where these meetings will be held? Out of respect for every homeschooling parent throughout this state, I hope that they will do all the above.
Thank you,
Terri Koyne
Macoupin County, Illinois
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)