It Isn't Supposed to Be Easy

A few thoughts on homeschooling, from a perspective of having done this for awhile now:

1. It's not for everyone.

We have met many, many homeschooling families over the years. Often it's just a chance meeting at a large gathering, such as when Sea World hosts a "homeschool" event. There you get to see thousands of families in split-second tableaux. Such encounters always have me wondering why many of these families choose to homeschool. Is it rage against the machine? A sincere desire to instill family values (like — I swear I saw this — matching tattoos on their teenagers)? Shouldn't they look happier if they're pursuing a family dream?

Just watching parents dealing with their kids in public makes me ask one other, even more troubling question: Are there parents who school their kids at home out of fear that some authority figure is going to sic child welfare services on them because they are obviously lousy parents? Of course, perhaps we were just catching them on a bad day...

2. The decision of whether to homeschool is never an easy one, even if it was never really a question at all.

My sweetheart and I had decided to homeschool before we ever brought a child into the world. The fact that Mrs. Woody had been a public school teacher in her past life only cemented the obvious: the state of public education was changing at an alarming rate, and not in a good way. Reading between the lines of various reports and debates throughout the nation even fifteen or sixteen years ago, it was clear that if we wanted our children to learn solid fact, rather than socialized ephemera, we needed to do it ourselves. Besides, if we want our children to learn something other than solid fact, I much prefer it be based on a gospel I can support, rather than the gospel of the micro-managing labor unions that currently control public education today.

These reasons alone, however, were not sufficient to make our final decision to homeschool our daughters. They were the "why" of the equation. The "why" is hardly ever in doubt; it is the "how" that makes homeschooling such a difficult decision. "How" are we going to teach our daughters everything they need to know, and can we possibly do so without interference from (or even notice of) state and local authorities. Those are questions that must be researched carefully and thoroughly before committing yourselves and your children to such a venture.

When we talk to perspective homeschoolers, the questions we get are never "why." They are "how." And they are legion.

3. Homeschooling is a noble act, no matter what your friends, family, neighbors, and especially the government may think.

This of course assumes that you are meant to homeschool. Interestingly, living in California is actually quite a blessing when it comes to homeschooling. I will tell you this, however: the level of potential interference from an administrative perspective increases exponentially if you live in a part of the state that is considered "liberal" in its base politics. We have had the good fortune of living in two counties that are traditionally considered "conservative" in their base. School districts in these counties largely shrug their collective shoulders where homeschoolers are concerned, and some even attempt to open their doors and allow homeschoolers access to their resources.

At a state level, California makes it possible to homeschool largely under the radar. Legally there are no real obstacles to homeschooling in this state. Challenges are usually the result of some moral diarrhea being suffered by a local authority who simply cannot accept that public education is anything less than spectacularly wonderful for every child. We even had one candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction in our last election who could not for the life of him imagine any campus in California not being perfectly "safe" for our children. This candidate had obviously never visited any campus anywhere in East or South Central Los Angeles.

I know there are families in California who have had to defend themselves legally, but by rights (and by law) they should never have been prosecuted in the first place.

4. Homeschooling is fun! Eventually!

Make no mistake: homeschool is hard work. It requires hours of planning; constant modification based on what works or doesn't work; daily fine-tuning to make sure you're understanding all the nuances that your children are experiencing as they grow (and learn!). In the early stages, frustration mounts whenever an attempted curriculum fails to do the job. This isn't working! What am I doing wrong? (Legal notice: frustrations may include, but are not limited to, curriculum, lack of internet access on any particular day, the attitudes of children or spouse, interference from "concerned" but "well-meaning" extended family, Mondays, Fridays, "that time of the month," full moons, or the latest ant infestation in your kitchen.)

It isn't necessarily you. Even if it is, you may simply need to rethink things. If one curriculum isn't working, there's bound to be one that will. Just check to make sure the problem isn't the way in which the curriculum was applied. Some people need to have every aspect of their school day scheduled out to the nth degree. Others abhor scheduling of any kind and just let things happen as they will. Either way, expect to be in a state of constant change until both you and your student(s) hit your stride. Finding that rhythm that works in most cases is the hardest thing you'll ever do. Once you've accomplished that and found the materials that properly support that rhythm, the rest is easy.

And fun.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Jack McConnell is being "termed out" as California State Superintendent of Public Instruction this year, and the field of potential replacements is large. Education is, rightly, an area where folks tend to have strong emotional preferences, and this particular slate of candidates is no exception.

While Uncle Woody is busy priming the pump for the inevitable "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters" in support of the June primaries, allow me to share with you the thoughts of one particular candidate for SSPI this year, Leonard J. Martin. He wrote the following to Michelle Huele, a homeschooler in Yucca Valley:

Home schooling's appropriate for children who have special difficulties that make it impossible for them to participate in traditional schooling. But under California law, a parent has the right to home school provided the parent is qualified to offer instruction. Personally, I believe nearly all kids would benefit more from being in traditional schools. Many parents home school for religious reasons, because they still hold outdated views on race or ethnicity, or for what they consider to be moral reasons. Since we have provisions for students to attend a school outside of their local community when there are legitimate reasons to do so, home schooling as an alternative to "unsafe" campuses is hardly a legitimate alternative. For the most part - overwhelmingly - the public schools of California are not only safe but are providing a high quality education. Yucca Valley should be no exception. If it is, as Superintendent I would like to hear the complaints.

There has also been a tremendous amount of fraud connected with home schooling. Corporate organizations have sprung up to drain precious taxpayer dollars from the state budget to "supervise" home schooling. That has been to the detriment of those children, who by necessity, must be home schooled.

My advice? Send the kids to a traditional public school.

http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/

Best Regards,
Leonard J. Martin
Home (661) 297-4815
Cell (661) 400-0059

If McConnell was no friend to homeschoolers, he at least had sense enough to not try to enforce a liberal interpretation of the "law" mentioned by Mr. Martin in his letter. The real problem with that law is, of course, that the label "qualified" is highly ambiguous and, of greatest interest to homeschoolers, does not include the word "credentialed." McConnell made some noise early on as he "fretted" over the unregulated masses of homeschoolers infesting the Golden State, only to back down under pressure from numerous homeschooling support groups and the Home School Legal Defense Association.

I bring attention to Mr. Martin, however, because his statements are quite typical of public education elitists, and reflect the fear-mongering approach that such politicians (and political hopefuls) always enlist when discussing the vastly complex issue of homeschooling.

Note that his very first statement brings up the taboo of homeschooling only being appropriate for kids with "special difficulties." This is particularly telling of Mr. Martin's predisposition to anti-homeschool bigotry. We instantly understand that homeschooling is something to be sneered at; a mess on the sidewalk over which we carefully step. Only "disadvantaged" children would ever "require" homeschooling; the rest must submit themselves to Dickensian workhouse-like apparatuses where the collective will of the children can be better molded to a carefully state-approved curriculum.

Let us never forget that, however well-intentioned and altruistic the concept of public education may have begun, it has over the years become nothing more than a union-run autocracy, sponsored by the state, and dominated by liberal think-tank elitists. This is why our schools have become the sorry ghosts of what they once were. Mr. Martin's attitude strongly suggests maintenance of the status quo, so far as political exigency is concerned. He will not rock the union boat, except to threaten to "fire bad teachers."

His bigotry is further revealed in this statement: "Many parents home school for religious reasons, because they still hold outdated views on race or ethnicity, or for what they consider to be moral reasons." Now, having raised these "reasons" for homeschooling, you might think that Mr. Martin would then address them. He does not. Instead, he focuses on school safety. Not only does he pooh-pooh the idea that schools may be unsafe (they are "overwhelmingly" safe, he believes), he also uses the canard of being able to attend a school "outside of their local community" where "legitimate reasons" exist. This is patently absurd. Anyone who has tried to get an exception just to attend another school intradistrict can tell you that the local education bureaucrats tightly control those movements, and "unsafe" schools are not one of the politically correct reasons for granting such a request. The moment you threaten one school's per-child budget, they start digging the moat and raising the drawbridge.

The final shaft in his quiver is to decry the "tremendous amount of fraud" in homeschooling. He brings up something he calls "corporate organizations" that have sprung up that "drain precious taxpayer dollars" to "supervise" homeschooling.

Huh? To what organizations does he refer, and why haven't I heard about these things before now? Certainly such corrupt corporations would be big news in a money-starved state like California! More amusing to me is the idea of supervising homeschoolers. The only possible reason I can even think of for supervising a homeschool family is where that family chooses to participate in a school district-sponsored homeschool program where supervision is the trade-off for having use of district resources and district-sponsored testing. Would those school districts qualify as the "corporate organizations" being vilified by Mr. Martin? Even were that so, it wouldn't affect me or my subversive academy because we answer to no one. We file our little Private School Affidavit form every October, in return for which the Great State of California valiantly ignores us. Every other effort to supervise homeschoolers necessarily fails because, as I have mentioned before, homeschoolers are the most unorganized bunch you'll ever come across. (Caveat: there are, Uncle Woody admits, some fabulous homeschool organizations in California. They tend to be aberrations.)

At the end of the day, even a politically dangerous candidate like Mr. Martin will have his hands full if he wins the election. Our public schools are undoubtedly in a serious decline. Whoever takes that office will be so busy balancing the needs of a voracious union with the seriously under-regulated public school cuisine requirements that there will be precious little time available to go after those seditious homeschoolers.

He won't be getting my vote, though.

Why We Homeschool - Reason #1

Michelle Malkin calls it child abuse. I also refer to this as political bigotry. You have to see this to believe it:

What she did to that little girl is reprehensible. Psychological torture of that sort creates scars, and I desperately want to see this so-called "teacher" held fully accountable. The fact that she felt absolutely no compunction about brow-beating her young charges who dared to mention The Opposition is evidenced by her bald-faced lie about being "okay" with kids who supported McCain. If that's "okay," I'd hate to see this woman get upset about something.

We homeschool precisely because if someone is going to brainwash my children, it may was well be us. Intolerant bigots of this sort should (and will) never have any opportunity to fill my childrens' heads with this hogwash. Bad enough I have to let them go to college at some point. But at least I have time to prepare them.

If I were that little girl's parents, I would have the teacher, the principal, and the school board over a legal barrel and looking to have that teacher's credential immediately yanked.

Disgusting.

Another Homeschool Justification

As if we needed another one:

Third graders in a Georgia elementary school are caught in a plot to kill their teacher. They even bring assorted tools, including a knife and toy handcuffs, with them to school.

Yeah, I want my daughters socializing with kids like that.

I just hope there are extreme attitude adjustments in these kids' futures.

A Clarification, If I May

I need to apologize if my recent posts have caused any level of confusion among those who homeschool or are interested in homeschool as an issue. There is much that troubles me these days, and two of those troublesome items have come in back-to-back incidents that have potentially grave consequences both for homeschoolers and those who may wish to homeschool.

Let me attempt to draw up a scorecard of sorts as a way of keeping things straight — if only in my own head.

Item 1: Senate Bill 777. SB 777 was introduced by state senator Sheila Kuehl as a means of forcing public schools to "not discriminate" against any sexual practice or orientation that may be displayed by school children (or anyone else, for that matter). But this "non-discrimination" goes beyond merely not speaking ill of someone's sexual preferences. It creates an atmosphere of indoctrination that will allow educators to establish principles in the minds of our children that are, in many instances, in direct conflict with the spiritual guidance parents strive to provide for those children at home.

Rather than ironic, it is in fact the aim of the supporters of this legislation to not only subject our children to this form of indoctrination, but to deny them any ability to learn opposing perspectives. Especially and particularly if those perspectives are based in faith. This is a deliberate attempt to not only strip God out of the classroom, which they have already managed to do quite effectively, but in fact to teach children to trust not in God (and, by extension, their own parents) but in the misguided philosophies of the political left.

This illustrates one of the primary reasons why we chose to homeschool before our children were born.

Item 2: Hot on the heels of this legislated educational lobotomy is the recent ruling of the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The statement by this court that parents do not, in fact, have a constitutional right to homeschool their children has clearly marked a battleground of educational idealogues. On the one side are parents who have a grave concern over the direction of public education in this state. On the other, those who have created this state's educational direction and wish to deny parents of their rights to decide what is best for their children. No war in history was ever fought over clearer demarcations. A line has been drawn in the sand, and those who wish to school their children have been dared — triple-dog dared, to quote from "A Christmas Story" — to cross over and fight.

And so we will. Whatever your opinions of homeschoolers, Christians, or children in general, you cannot come into this fight as a neutral observer. There can be no such animal. Those who consider themselves neutral do not have children. Those who have children will make a choice; either directly or passively. If you choose to fight, pick your side and your weapon. (This is a metaphorical weapon, of course. I am not advocating violent resistance by any means!) If you choose to ignore, then you have passively chosen to accept whatever the natural consequences of this fight happen to be.

So those are my feelings in a highly compressed nutshell. We who homeschool will not let these issues drop off the radar, because we can't afford to. When a court declares us to be violators of the law, we must fight to change that law at any and all costs. If we lose, then we must find a place in society where our rights are respected. If that place cannot be found in the state of California, then it becomes the Golden State's loss.

If Governor Schwarzenegger is serious about supporting a parent's right to decide how best to educate their child, then more power to him (and us). If this is just another politically expedient aphorism, then his political soul will rot in hell.

Time to Fight the Fascists

It's an image straight out of the romanticized visions of the French Resistance: a family gathers around the wireless, listening to news of the downfall of everything they hold dear, and wondering when they themselves may be arrested and incarcerated. Or worse.

Such is the image projected today by numerous homeschooling families in the state of California following a disastrous ruling by an appellate court a few days ago. H. Walter Croskey, writing for the majority, dictated to a Los Angeles family that they not only had to put two of their children in public school, but further stated that "parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."

So now the battle is engaged. On the one side are parents who wish to have control over their childrens' educations. On the other, those who do not trust parents to be able to make those decisions on behalf of their own children. If you are a parent there is no middle road. You cannot sit on the fence in this fight. You either support your own parental rights, or you abdicate them. If you abdicate, then you reap what you sow. If you somehow believe that the state of California is better equipped to judge what is best for your child's welfare, then you expect that child to be indoctrinated in the same vein as a Nancy Pelosi, a Barbara Boxer, or a Sheila Kuehl. In other words, you want the government teaching your child about every possible sexual practice and orientation that our twisted society has ever conceived, and you are willing to accept whatever consequences come from this teaching.

This travesty, tied indirectly to the topic at hand, is the result of another assault on our families in the guise of SB 777, recently signed into law by Governator Schwarzennbody. Make no mistake, this teaching will occur. California's professional educators are mostly (with a few exceptions) beside themselves with glee over being allowed to unleash this indoctrination on our impressionable children. No less a personage than A. J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles was reported to support the court's decision. According to the LA Times, Duffy said, "What's best for a child is to be taught by a credentialed teacher." Of course he believes that. I'm just wondering how he's going to incorporate transgender and homosexual discussions in his special ed classes.

There is irony in the intersection of these two issues. The Governor "worked with legislators" to create and sign SB 777, yet decries the issue of parents not having control over their childrens' education. So why create a law that will provoke the ire of countless parents who still have their moral compasses installed, then get huffy over an appellate court decision that effectively criminalizes a not insignificant portion of your population simply because they don't agree with the law you just created? It makes no sense, but this is what we've come to expect from our RINO governor.

In the meantime, homeschool families are hunkering down. I haven't quite gotten to the point where I'm ready to dig a bomb shelter in my backyard (I don't think our HOA would approve), but sandbagging is not out of the question. We're keeping a close eye on the legal ramifications of this decision. We will join ourselves to the cause because we must if we wish to stay in California and continue to educate our children properly. We will voice our opinions until the right people understand that laws must be changed, they must be clear, and they must support a parent's right to homeschool. If not, we will find that support and work to get them elected. Ballot initiatives may be required. This is a legal, political, social, and religious issue. It crosses all races and genders. It affects rich and poor alike. It matters not whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. You could potentially fall under this ruling.

It is a fight. Parents are either for it, or against it. Those without children may not care, but it I wouldn't expect them to. Parents of school-age children have no excuses, however. Watch this issue; make informed choices; make your opinions known. Vote.

It's important.

The Devil is in the Details - UPDATED

(H/T: My Lovely Bride!)

UPDATE: It's worse than I feared. California's socialist appellate courts are already weighing in.

California has committed the unpardonable sin of elevating sexual orientation to the level of "discrimination." That they have chosen our public schools as the vehicle from which to launch this mockery makes the sin that much more unpalatable.

The mechanism for this debacle was California Senate Bill 777, introduced by notoriously gay activist and legislator Sheila Kuehl. It codifies the language that now makes sexual orientation subject to anti-discrimination laws in the state, and allows public schools to openly endorse and teach alternative lifestyles to our impressionable children.

Now, many will look at the language of the bill and wonder what on earth the problem is. All it does is add sexual orientation to a list of personal attributes against which we cannot "discriminate." In other words, it levels the playing field (the progressive movement's favorite phrase, by the way) and tries to get us to be more tolerant of those who believe or act differently from ourselves.

That's the politically correct discussion, and probably the reason why Gov. Schwarzennidiot signed it.

What it really does is open the flood-gates for ACLU-like challenges that will ultimately see to it that our children are force-fed a steady diet of politically correct sexual education. It will no longer be adequate (if, indeed, it ever was) to merely teach our children how to avoid getting pregnant or prevent sexually transmitted diseases. No, now we get to teach them how to get in touch with feelings that they themselves probably never knew they had, and will wonder why on earth Mom and Dad never told them about.

This op-ed piece that appeared recently in the Salt Lake Tribune is a nice summary of a growing movement among Christians to remove their kids from California public schools. In fact, the movement is national, but the column focuses on the California branch, headed by a pastor in Yorba Linda. The idea espoused by this so-called "Exodus Mandate" is to encourage parents to remove their children from public schools before the anti-family forces have a chance to activate their agenda in the classroom. In some schools it may already be too late.

The idea is admirable, but I'm afraid it's also probably impractical for many, many families. Here in Orange County we have a unique problem. It takes money — lots of money — to live in this neck of the woods. Hacienda Woody is a manufactured home, for heaven's sake, and we're paying nearly as much per month as we did in our townhouse in Ventura County seven years ago. So much of a given family's disposable income is, in fact, dedicated merely to living expenses that there isn't really much left over for anything like private education for any but the wealthiest of our citizenry. Maintaining this kind of lifestyle also generally means dual incomes. Mom and Dad both have to work, usually outside of the home, in order to keep up with their expenditures every month. Those of us with single incomes are even more strapped.

One idea fronted by the Mandate is that a family might find another family who is, for example, homeschooling, and ask if their child could join them for studies. That idea, while it may have some merit, is also not without its difficulties. For one thing, moving a child from a public school environment to a homeschool situation is often difficult and carries with it a longish learning curve for both the parents and the child. Secondly, there are no guarantees that a child from another home will be a good fit in another family's homeschool. This kind of decision would have to be researched long and hard, and most families don't have that kind of time right now.

I suspect the better course is to challenge SB 777 in court. It needs to be done, really, because there have to be constitutional challenges that will be generated by passage of this legislation. For one thing, there is no provision for parents to indicate whether their student should be subjected to this kind of teaching. There are, of course, exemptions for things like religious academies, especially if this bill seeks to impose anything that would run counter to what that religion teaches. But religious academies are private and would have been exempt anyway. Likewise homeschools are exempt, as they should be. Heck, I could easily qualify my homeschool as a "religious private school" if push came to absolute shove, but I'd rather not have to bother.

[I say "easily," but let's get serious: The minute you declare yourself to the State of Califoria as a private or parochial school, you are suddenly subject to more regulations than you ever dreamed existed. Additionally, the paperwork to qualify for that designation alone would just about kill you. Hence, I amend my original statement to say, "Heck, I could, if held at gunpoint, qualify my homeschool..." Yeah, that sounds more realistic.]

Public school families, unfortunately, have no such safeguards, and the bombardment will be intense and overwhelming at some point in the near future. This is one of those times when I wish I had better solutions to offer, but I don't. I do wish those families Godspeed, however. They'll need all the blessings they can get.

Homeschoolers For [TBD]

Interesting lead-in from Drudge today: "HUCKABEE DRAWS SUPPORT OF HOME-SCHOOL FAMILIES..." — with one of his dead-end links back to the Report. It's frustrating when Drudge does that, but hardly insurmountable to someone with any sort of Googling skills. I believe the article he meant to link was this one from the Des Moines Register.

I think the article overstates the support Huckabee is getting from homeschoolers as being somehow indicative of how homeschoolers as a national group may vote in the primaries. As I've mentioned before, homeschoolers as a group are about the least organized bunch of people I know, and I just can't get excited about the fact that Huckabee has seemingly overwhelming support from evangelical homeschoolers in Iowa. If the Constitution included a clause stating that homeschoolers must be able to organize more than an occasional field trip to a local museum once a month, we would fail the constitutional test. We're nice people, but our group mentality doesn't extend too far outside our immediate families. This is part of the reason why we don't appreciate public school. A very small part, but there you have it.

But back to Huck. A large part of the evangelical fervor over Rev. Huck is an endorsement coming from no less a personage than Michael Farris, one of the founders of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). As an evangelical Christian himself, Mr. Farris carries a lot of editorial weight with those who hold similar beliefs. This is fine, and I certainly don't begrudge these fine people their choice of candidate. I just don't happen to agree with them, and I particularly don't agree with Mr. Farris' evaluation of Huckabee the Candidate.

Let me first say that Huckabee may very well be as sincerely Christian as he claims to be. Certainly he's put in the study (even if his claim to a "theological degree" may be somewhat overstated) and has the license to preach, so to speak. Clearly his political positions reflect a certain evangelical flavor and coloring, to the point of being downright alarming to non-evangelicals across the country. I have no doubt that he truly believes himself to be the only logical choice for Christians in this coming election.

Except that he's not. Not for this Christian, at any rate.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the recent revelations about Huckabee's time as Governor of Arkansas are hardly worthy of an unqualified statement of support from most conservative points of view. His tax record alone gives serious pause, as do the most recent allegations that significant political supporters (read: financiers) were given high level positions in his administration.

Michael Farris tries to make the case that support for Huckabee will somehow protect homeschoolers from Democrat Candidate-Presumed Hillary Clinton. Even if it were true that Huckabee's position on homeschooling were the best of any candidate in the field (I've not heard about this issue from any other candidate), I'm still not convinced that Huckabee has what it takes to defeat Clinton in the general election. In fact, whoever the nominee is in 2008, they will likely turn the attack machinery of the DNC fully on the Republican and I believe Huckabee would be shredded in short order. Even if he somehow survives the attacks, modern politics is all about perception, and any perceived weakness in his campaign at a general level would guarantee a Democrat win in November.

Further to Farris' point, homeschool isn't truly a national issue anyway. Political control of education is felt far more at the state level than the national level. If you've paid any attention to this blog lately, you'll know how I feel about the national record in education policy. The NEA — not the Bush administration — runs education policy in this country, and the effects have been devastating. For homeschoolers, however, the greater fight for control over their right to educate their children at home remains with state and local boards of public instruction. Federal policy is about money and who gets it. They could care less whether we're teaching our kids at home; they have bigger fish to fry. At a state level, however, where federal money is converted into wasteful local education budgets, homeschoolers are a continual sore-spot. We thrive against all the commonly accepted educational formulae. Our kids excel in many academic arenas, and it couldn't gall professional educators more.

It is not Hillary that homeschoolers fear in 2008. It is any state or local education official who continues to harangue homeschoolers for being outlaws that we fear most. Huckabee, whatever his other virtues may be, will not have any control over that fight, nor will any future President of the United States.

I suspect that a large portion of the support Huckabee is garnering from Iowa homeschoolers is loyalty from a large contingent of evangelicals who have similar beliefs to his. They're just certain that the rest of the country is "out to get him." This circling of the wagons is not a surprising reaction to what we have learned about Huckabee. Still, it worries me that they end up supporting the man for the wrong reasons, and aren't taking a harder look at someone who ought to be appear to be "too good to be true."

If you want to draw an allegory with Mitt Romney and LDS support, go ahead. As I've mentioned before, I'm not firmly on the Romney bandwagon at this point. I'm not on anyone's bandwagon yet simply because I'm waiting for all these insipid non-debates to dry up before I try to form an opinion. I mean, really, has any single debate of this season changed your opinion of any candidate for the better? Me, neither.

So don't get too excited about your support from homeschoolers, Mike. They're good people, their hearts are in the right place, and they even make terrific campaign volunteers. But unless they can miraculously organize a national coalition of evangelical homeschoolers to act as a lobby, their message will be limited in scope.

Kinda like mine.

NEA - National Education Axis

When labor unions were first formed over a hundred years ago, it felt like a good thing. Finally common workers would have some guarantees for favorable working conditions, reliable wages, and protection from greedy, profiteering bosses.

Flash forward to 2007 and you now find that unions themselves are just as greedy of profiteering and unfair labor practices as the bosses they continually declaim.

I have had direct dealings with several unions throughout my career. I work in aerospace, for example, which means that I have co-workers who are members of the powerful IAW. Whenever they strike (and it's only happened a couple of times during my career) it hurts. The company inevitably loses money and it takes us a good couple of years to recover, generally speaking. Since I am an office "professional" (this adjective always makes me chuckle) I am not constrained by a union, although they have tried. The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) has threatened more than once to make salaried guys like me become part of a union of which I want no part. It's one of very few things — being asked to do something unethical being another one — that would make me seriously consider resigning from the company and trying my luck elsewhere. Fortunately, their reach hasn't extended to our facility as yet.

Bad as some unions can be, however, none hold a candle to the growing evil which has become the National Education Association. I say this because no other organization in the country has so successfully foisted a socialist agenda on an unsuspecting populace by hiding themselves behind our children.

Now, I may caveat this by stating that, if you are dedicated to public education and enjoy having your kids go through that experience, then the NEA may not seem so bad.

On the other hand, from a homeschooler's perspective the NEA is a living incarnation of the devil himself. If liberals find G. W. Bush to be the most evil man in America, homeschoolers point to the NEA and see Soviet-era policies and power-mongering run amok.

The NEA is, above all else, a lobby. They hold the ears of extremely influential legislators both nationally and (through their state affiliates) locally. Their coffers are deep, and they use that money as effectively as any political boss of the 30's might have. When they speak on matters of educational policy their voices are heard; altogether too frequently to the detriment of public education in this country.

As Exhibit A I present to you the NEA's latest "official" resolution regarding homeschooling in the United States of America. If you can stomach the intense marketing, you can visit the page on which this resolution is linked, or you can click straight to the PDF file. A word of warning, though: it's a big file. Resolution B-75 begins on page 45 of the document.

B-75. Home Schooling

The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking and passing of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.

The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

The Association further believes that local public school systems should have the authority to determine grade placement and/or credits earned toward graduation for students entering or re-entering the public school setting from a home school setting. (1988, 2006)

They fire a warning shot over our bow with their very first sentence: parents, who know our children better than their teachers ever will, are incapable of providing our children with a "comprehensive education experience." Here are a few choice assumptions this resolution goes on to make:

• Children must be "enrolled" in homeschool


• Children must be subject to "state curricular requirements," most of which have become bloated over time far beyond their ability to actually teach anything meaningful


• Children must be assessed (presumably by The State) to "ensure" adequate academic progress


• Homeschools must be limited to the immediate family


• Homeschool parents will bear all costs (i.e., no vouchers, even if available in your area!)


• Only State Licensed persons may teach homeschooled children, and


• Only State Approved curricula should be used

It also goes without saying that, even though homeschooling parents support public education through taxes, their wild kids should never be allowed to mix with kids who suffer through the public education experience.

I actually have no beef with their last statement about grade placement as it only stands to reason. If your kids are coming into a public experience from a home experience, they're either embarrassingly advanced compared to the public schoolers, or have failed in their home experience and can only benefit from the public schools.

As for the rest, read on:

1. My children are "enrolled" in our homeschool only by virtue of our having filed an appropriate form with our state superintendant of public instruction. Period. They do not audit our home to make sure that our two Woodyettes are actually attending. Nor are they welcome to. In short, the State of California is not welcome in this house without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but I see no reason for the state to intrude on our privacy, either.

2. State curricular requirements are laughably and hopelessly complex. Nowhere else in the world will you find a more convoluted set of requirements for the teaching of relatively simple principles than in the United States. Mrs. Woody used to work for a major educational publisher and assisted with the development of instructional materials as part of her job. After leaving the company to become a stay-at-home mom she would occasionally do some freelance work for her old company as a means of supplementing our income. What she discovered was that individual states can take an already hopelessly complicated curriculum and, if it were at all possible, make it even worse. I do NOT want my kids subjected to this nonsense!

3. State licensing of instructors and educators has brought us a veritable pantheon of child molesters, autocrats, emotional and physical abusers, and other honorable professionals. Need I say more? I realize that this represents only a fraction of those who consider themselves to be professional educators. But if any of that fraction come in contact with my sweet daughters, I shudder to think of the consequences.

4. I thought we were done with the whole segregation issue of the 60's and 70's. Apparently not. Now we find we don't want our pure-bred, publicly educated children mixing it up with those dirty, nasty little homeschoolers. If it weren't for the fact that we hold school in our own homes, I suppose our kids would be packed off on the first available bus for some concentration camp in the Nevada desert. Still, that has to be a better option than sending them to some school where they have such recreational activities as random locker searches, metal detectors, begging for bathroom key privileges, and detention. That would certainly be my idea of a good time! Bottom line: if you don't want my kids using public education programs or facilities, then you obviously don't want my tax money, either.

Resolution B-75 is laughable not only for what it is, but also for what it isn't: a thoughtful, comprehensive understanding of the homeschool paradigm and how these two very different worlds might possibly work together for the common good. I'd like to say they've made a start, but Resolution B-75 isn't it.

As If We Needed Another Reason...

Murfreesboro, Tennessee gives us reason number... number... oh, heck, we've long since lost count. (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

We homeschool precisely so our children aren't subjected to this kind of rank stupitidy from public education "professionals."

Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables. The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

As a kid I was one of those impressionable youths who listened to the evening news with ever-increasing trepidation. The world was clearly involved in disaster after disaster, and worst of all was the violence in our own neighborhoods. At the time we lived uncomfortably close to Los Angeles where race riots were the order of the day. Political assassinations were in vogue. My nightmares always involved people with guns (one reason, perhaps, why I've never owned one myself), and I can remember more than one night where Mom had to comfort me back to sleep. I think you get the gist of my objection with this criminal act.

During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on [the] locked door. After the lights went out, about 20 kids started to cry, 11-year-old Shay Naylor said. "I was like, 'Oh My God,' " she said. "At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out."

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: This kind of thoughtless approach to teaching is nothing short of criminal child abuse. Well intentioned? Maybe. Even if, however, I were to give these "educators" the benefit of this very considerable doubt, they should still be, at an absolute minimum, fired. Goodbye — thanks for service rendered and all that — but get out.

In a perfect world, though, this Don Bartch character would be tried for inflicting emotional distress on the children. I can only imagine how I personally would have reacted as a child, being on a school trip without my parents there to protect me (like I'd trust my teachers and assistant principal?) and then be told that a gunman was "on the loose." Absolutely criminal on the part of these people.

Nearly-as-criminal understatement of the article:

Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation "involved poor judgment."

Ya think?

Says Michelle:

No wonder homeschooling is so popular.

You know it, sister.

An Ocean of Memories

[I meant to post this on Inner Dad. I don't generally post schmaltzy stuff like this on the Woundup. The Woundup is my mosh pit, for corn's sake. You know the kinds of commenters I get over here... why would I subject family stuff to that atmosphere?

On the other hand, since when did I ever do or say anything that made sense?

Vive le blog!]

[UPDATE: Okay, I couldn't do it. This sort of post is just too innocent for the Woundup. You'll have to link over to Inner Dad if you want to read this one. Sorry!]

Why We Homeschool - Reason #2

No PTA.

According to Little Sis, the PTA in her community in the Lone Brain Cell Star State have adopted Amway tactics for recruiting. All that's missing are Diamond Retreats for top recruiters.

My daughter was drafted (almost literally) into her PTA when her hubby was stationed at Travis AFB. She became president by default in their last year there, and I spent many an agonizing hour on the phone with her so she could detox after each meeting, event, or issue to be resolved with the parents, teachers, and principal. She swore never to get involved again.

Instead, my daughter now volunteers at her daughter's school as an aide. This way she can keep a weather eye on her own daughter even as she helps an attention-challenged child in the special ed classes. It's not much more fun than the PTA, but (as my daughter points out) it most definitely is not the PTA. She'll take it.

My sister, at least, has the courage of her convictions. Keep the faith, kiddo!