Since the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, HSLDA has received more than a few calls from both members and nonmembers. Some are quite concerned about the future of homeschooling under an Obama presidency.

First of all, let us always remember that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). He also instructs us to be wise, plan, and be prepared in everything we do.

Despite HSLDA’s efforts prior to the election to get an official statement from the Obama campaign regarding their position on homeschooling, we received no response.

So where does that leave us?

We do know that the Democratic Party has an official position of supporting public education. The National Education Association (NEA), which is the national teachers union, is a major supporter of the Democratic Party. We know that the NEA’s position is that every child should be either taught by a certified teacher or supervised by one. Additionally, their position is that the curriculum used by all homeschoolers should be approved by the state, and children should only be able to continue to be homeschooled based upon systematic evaluation by the state.

It is important to remember that under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority over private and home education. This is not to say that they will not attempt to exercise authority in these areas. And whenever private educators accept grants and benefits, there are conditions to receiving those benefits, including being subject to regulation.

Just because the federal government has no constitutional authority over home education, however, doesn’t mean that federal bureaucrats or legislators might not attempt to impose some form of regulation over private and home education. We saw this back in 1994, when the reauthorization of the Secondary and Elementary Act (H.R. 6) contained an amendment which would have conditioned funding to the states for public education to require that all teachers be certified in every subject area they teach. The homeschool community rose up; over a million phone calls were made to the U.S. Congress, and the amendment was defeated. During that process, Representative Dick Armey from Texas introduced an amendment which stated that the federal government and Congress have no authority over private and home education. This protective language was passed by the House of Representatives.

With your help and the help of homeschoolers all across America, we will vigorously resist any effort on the part of the federal government to regulate home education. Obviously, this will take resources—which come from our membership—and we would encourage our current members to continue standing with us, and encourage others to join us.

An immediate concern to watch is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although we do not know what Barack Obama’s specific position on the treaty is, we know that future Vice President Joe Biden has publicly indicated that this UN Convention should be ratified by the United States.

It does appear that we will soon have the challenge of keeping the UN Convention from being ratified by the U.S. Senate, ratification requiring a two-thirds majority to pass.

Should the UN Convention be ratified, it would impose the United Nation’s view of children’s rights on America. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties become the Supreme Law of the land, taking precedent over state laws and state supreme court decisions.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not in the best interest of parents or children, as it would undermine the parental authority that our laws currently recognize. For further information on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child visit ParentalRights.org.

To summarize, homeschoolers should not live in fear, but we do need to be wise, and we will need to be vigilant to protect parental rights and homeschooling freedoms in the future. We stand prepared, with your help, to do that as we’ve done for 25 years.

Michael Smith
HSLDA President

Action is needed now to stop a harmful early education bill, H.R. 2343, the Education Begins at Home Act. Despite the bill’s seemingly homeschool-friendly title, the legislation is actually yet another “big government” encroachment into the sphere of education.

H.R. 2343 seeks to expand the Head Start Early Home Visitation program to supposedly “educate” parents of children from infants to 5-year-olds on parenting strategies. If passed, this bill would literally open the door for government employees to enter private homes to impose unelected officials’ educational agendas, which may prove offensive and contrary to many families’ moral and religious beliefs. Although at this point enrollment in the home visitation program is voluntary, government programs almost always grow beyond their original scope when bills are amended.

This intrusive and unnecessary legislation comes at a whopping starting cost of more than $190 million—a burden that will be incurred by already struggling American taxpayers.

Action Requested

Please call your U.S. representative today and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 2343, the Education Begins at Home Act. It is not necessary to identify yourself as a homeschooler. You can say something as simple as the following:

“I am a constituent and I strongly oppose H.R. 2343. The government should not be involved in funding questionable early education programs, especially at a time of financial uncertainty when our hard-earned tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere.”

You can reach your U.S. representative by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121, or by using our Legislative Toolbox.

This bill has been placed on the House calendar and could come up for a vote anytime this week, or even during the weekend as Congress rushes to finish legislative priorities before they adjourn.

Background

For more information on H.R. 2343 and the dangers of early education, please visit our online bill page.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

Individual family homeschool students who are not enrolled in a private school satellite program or “umbrella school” desiring to homeschool do so establishing a private school exemption in their home. The filing time is just around the corner, so write yourself a reminder and don’t let the deadline get past your busy schedule.

The online affidavit can be found at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/rq/affidavit.asp between October 1 and October 15, 2008

Calling on the Home School Legal Defense Association for assistance, HSLDA attorney Scott Woodruff reviewed the state’s correspondence and spotted their gaffe: they were demanding information the family had already submitted—and only needs to be submitted once. Under the major reforms of Maine’s homeschool law in 2003, families must submit a fairly detailed notice of intent their first year of homeschooling, but only need to file a brief letter in subsequent years confirming their intention to continue with homeschooling (called the “subsequent year letter”).

Attorney Woodruff wrote a letter to the Department of Education explaining that they were demanding information that was not appropriate for a subsequent year letter. As of this writing, the Department had not replied to the letter or a follow-up email. Families should avoid using the state’s “subsequent year letter” form since it calls for information not required to be submitted.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

“This is a victory for California’s students, parents and education community. This decision confirms the right every California child has to a quality education and the right parents have to decide what is best for their children. I hope the ruling settles this matter for parents and homeschooled children once and for all in California, but assure them that we, as elected officials, will continue to defend parents’ rights.”

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell:

“I am pleased that the courts have clarified the right of California parents to homeschool their children. I have respected the right of parents to make educational decisions they feel are in the best interest of their children. I recognize and understand the consternation that the earlier court ruling caused for many parents and associations involved in homeschooling. It is my hope that today’s ruling will allay many of those fears and resolve much of the confusion.”

Friday’s ruling essentially upheld the position of the state Department of Education and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who have traditionally allowed home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.

“As head of California’s public school system, it would be my wish that all children attend public school, but I understand that a traditional public school environment may not be the right setting for each and every child,” he said. “I recognize and understand the consternation that the earlier court ruling caused for many parents and associations involved in home schooling. It is my hope that today’s ruling will allay many of those fears and resolve much of the confusion.”

The court also said that the right of parents to home-school their children can be overridden if a child is in danger.

Home-schooling families celebrated the ruling.

“We’re ecstatic, happy and thrilled,” said Loren Gould of Westchester, who teaches her son, Logan, 7, at home. “He gets to keep his love of learning alive. . . . The world is his classroom.”

The case stemmed from the Long family of Lynwood, who were accused of mistreating some of their eight children. All of the children are or had been enrolled at Sunland Christian School, where they would occasionally take tests, but they were taught in their home by their mother.

Lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children had asked the court to require them to attend a public or private school full time so adults could monitor their well-being. The family court declined, but the children’s lawyers appealed.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in February that Sunland officials’ occasional monitoring of the Longs’ methods of teaching were insufficient to qualify as being enrolled in a private school. Because Mary Long does not have a teaching credential, the family violated state laws, the ruling said.

The Longs, the Sunland school and others appealed, and the appellate panel agreed to revisit the ruling. That panel heard arguments in June at a freewheeling hearing attended by at least 45 attorneys representing disparate groups. Democratic and Republican politicians, religious and secular home-schoolers, and liberal and conservative legal scholars all weighed in, saying the court had erred.

Phillip Long, who has said the family chose to home-school the children because of their strong Christian beliefs, said Friday that he doesn’t believe the court was swayed by the legal arguments.

“Only one thing swayed this court — politics,” he said. “This court was under pressure. . . . They did it to protect themselves and their reputation. Those judges want to be Supreme Court judges, they want to move up. They’re not going to do anything to upset their careers.”

Though the appellate court upheld the right of parents to home-school, it did direct the family court to revisit whether the Longs should be allowed to continue to home-school their children.

It’s unclear what will happen, because in July the family court terminated its jurisdiction over the family’s children, though the children’s lawyers are appealing that decision. Long is confident he will prevail.

“Educating your children in your own home preexisted these buffoons that sit on the 2nd Circuit,” he said. “It preexisted this state. It preexisted us. Parents have been teaching their own children since the beginning.”

California does little to enforce the education department’s provisions and insists that doing so is the local school districts’ responsibility.

In addition, state education officials say some parents home-school their children without the knowledge of any entity, making them virtually impossible to locate.

Home-schoolers and government officials have largely accepted this murky arrangement, but the court faulted the Legislature for failing to clarify the rules.

“It is important to recognize that it is not for us to consider, as a matter of policy, whether home schooling should be permitted in California. That job is for the Legislature. It is not the duty of the courts to make the law; we endeavor to interpret it,” Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a ruling signed by the two other members of the panel. “Our first task, interpreting the law of California, is made more difficult in this case by legislative inaction.”

To that end, the court said additional requirements for home-schoolers in other states such as standardized testing or home visits should be considered by the California Legislature.

“Given the state’s compelling interest in educating all of its children . . . and the absence of an express statutory and regulatory framework for home schooling in California, additional clarity in this area of the law would be helpful,” according to the ruling.

Statements such as those irked some home-school organizations that are weary of regulation, but were supported by constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Irvine’s law school, who urged the court to overturn its initial ruling that banned most home schooling.

“I believe it’s the right of parents, if they chose, to be able to home-school their children. That’s absolutely their right,” he said. But “the state has an important interest [in] making sure all children are adequately educated.”

From the LA Times

LOS ANGELES (BP)–In a huge win for thousands of Christian families in California and nationwide, a California appeals court Aug. 8 reversed itself and ruled that parents do in fact have a right to homeschool their children even if they lack teaching credentials.

The three-judge panel received nationwide attention and criticism in February when it ruled that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” It based its ruling on a nearly 80-year-old law by the California legislature. But in the decades since that law was implemented, the panel ruled Aug. 8, the legislature has implicitly accepted homeschooling as legal.

“We … conclude that California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education,” the justices wrote in their unanimous decision.

The February ruling said parents could homeschool their children only if they had a “valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught” — something that many if not most homeschooling parents don’t have. The panel announced in March it would rehear the case. The original decision drew criticism from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged legislation if it wasn’t overturned, as well as from State Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell, who said he supported the rights of homeschoolers.

There are an estimated 166,000 homeschool students in California. More than a dozen organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to reconsider its ruling. Technically, the court case involved alleged abuse within a family who had homeschooled their children. But instead of simply ruling on that particular case, the court issued a broad ruling that covered all homeschool families in the state.

The latest ruling drew wide praise from homeschool organizations.

“This is a great victory for homeschool freedom,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said in a statement. “I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling. The team effort was remarkable.”

The original ruling was viewed as particularly troubling to Christian families because California’s public schools have some of the more liberal laws in the nation regarding teaching about sexuality and homosexuality. Many of those families see homeschooling as the only viable alternative.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, was among the groups involved in the case seeking a reversal.

“Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney Gary McCaleb said in a statement. “Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.”

The court Aug. 8 said that home schooling was amended out of state law in 1929, and that court rulings in 1953 and 1961 “confirmed” that children could be homeschooled only by a credentialed tutor. But since then, the panel ruled, the legislature has passed statutes which assume that homeschooling is legal.

“Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature’s apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools,” the decision said.

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

For the first time in over 15 years, a United States jurisdiction has enacted laws that significantly increase restrictions on homeschooling freedom!

This past Wednesday, the D.C. State Board of Education (SBOE) approved the State Superintendent of Education’s June 27 draft of the home education regulations. After some discussion, the SBOE voted 5 to 1 in favor of the superintendent’s regulations.

Only Board Member William Lockridge voted “no.” When giving his reasons, he exposed the unbridled discretion the Superintendent would now have over homeschoolers. Lockridge likened the new power of the Superintendent over parents as a type of “socialism.”

These regulations were objected to by many—the Board recorded receiving over 2,800 emails, 400 phone calls, and written comments in opposition.

This was the third public session held to discuss these regulations. In the first session, over 120 homeschoolers attended and over 30 testified including lengthy presentations by Chris Klicka, Mike Donnelly, and Scott Woodruff of HSLDA. That resulted in the removal of the worst requirement: home visits by D.C. school officials.

However, in spite of testimony presented by Ethan Reedy, President of D.C. Home Educators Association, and Chris Klicka of HSLDA, the Board passed the new restrictive regulations. It was clear the Board already had its mind made up. (Klicka’s written testimony can be reviewed online here).

HSLDA had even delivered a letter signed by 10 congressmen on the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform encouraging them to “work with HSLDA to ensure that the proposed changes in the city’s rules … will not have an adverse impact on homeschooling families in the District.” All to no avail.

Among other things, the new regulations require annual notification of a parent’s intent to homeschool on a future form developed by OSSE (Office of the State Superintendent of Education), maintenance of a portfolio of schoolwork, and up to two annual portfolio reviews by the OSSE to determine whether a homeschool program, in OSSE’s opinion, is providing “regular, thorough instruction” in the required subjects. No guidelines are provided by the Board giving the OSSE arbitrary discretion to implement these provisions.

To read the new regulations, click here.

HSLDA is working on an analysis to guide our D.C. members in their response to this development. Please stay tuned for further information as OSSE’s deadline for notification (August 15) approaches.

For the U.S. family working and living overseas, there are typically three options.

Existing traditional school systems: These schools range from Department of Defense (DODEA) schools with a traditional U.S. curriculum, to private schools that use a preferred curriculum and instructional pedagogy adopted by that school. DODEA schools, for those eligible, are provide an educational environment similar to most U.S. Public schools. Private schools, ranging from moderately priced to very expensive may meet the needs of U.S. families living overseas.

Homeschooling: Homeschooling overseas is very similar to homeschooling in the U.S. The family either designs their own curriculum, or uses courses provided by curriculum companies. As in U.S. Homeschooling, the parent is the primary teacher, and also serves as the principal, dean, and coach.

School-at-Home: Unlike homeschooling, school-at-home programs are provided by public and private schools established to serve students worldwide. In school-at-home programs, the school provides a teacher, and has administrative staff (principal, counselor, etc.) to support the child’s learning needs. School-at-home programs range from inexpensive to expensive, text-based mail-in programs to online education delivery options.

Many employers recognize that family and education are key considerations for employee retention at overseas locations, and provide flexibility in supporting the family’s learning options. When the family opts for homeschooling or school-at-home opportunities, the employers may provide financial resources to support the family’s choice.

Which options to use:

Homeschooling:

Global Student Network has been providing an outstanding U.S. based curriculum for several years to overseas homeschool families. This is a Virtual Curriculum for grades 2-12. Each of the 90+ courses was developed by a nationally certified teacher, and is deeply rooted in the National Academic Content Standards. Delivered via the internet, courses are accessible 24/7. Fully customizable for every student’s unique learning needs.

Find out why over 25,000+ families and students worldwide have chosen Global Student Network as their On-line Homeschool Curriculum.

* Approved by the U.S. Department of State for overseas families, International IDEA, World-Wide IDEA, and over 185 public school districts.

* High quality, standards based curriculum gives families all the tools they need to provide for their children’s educational needs.

* Homeschool parents are enrolled in the “teachers” module, which includes the answer keys.

* Global Student Network provides course selection assistance, transcripts, certificates of completion, and diplomas for the parents to issue to their children.

How it Works

* License fee includes unlimited courses for the duration of the 365 day license. Students can select new courses as they complete.

* Check out Global Student Network free on-line demo. Use the student, parent and teacher modules to see how students complete and submit assignments, and the lessons appear to be graded, including the answer keys.

* Submit the on-line enrollment form, and your student will be enrolled within 24 hours of processing. Parents will receive “teacher” and student passwords via e-mail.

School-at-Home

International Virtual Learning Academy (IVLA): The International Virtual Learning Academy is a California private school, serving students in Grades 3-12 worldwide, through its unique online independent study program. IVLA meets and/or exceeds national content standards and offers High school diplomas, transcripts, and transfer assistance.

As a private school, IVLA complies with all statutory requirements and is authorized to award a California High School diploma to any student who completes the requirements for graduation. Please feel free to review our website and learn more about this exciting new concept of educating your child in today’s world.

BENEFITS OF IVLA:

* 100% Online Distance Learning
* Online classes available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
* Enroll anytime and start immediately
* Study at a pace that suits your lifestyle
* 90+ Courses Offered
* Curriculum aligned to National Standards
* Academic Advisors (Counselor) Assistance
* Great student services and support
* Individual Courses Available
* Full Diploma Programs
* Summer School
* Academic Advisor (counselor)

Students of all ages living abroad and anywhere where they have access to a computer with the internet can enroll IVLA.

Many online international students have successfully used our curriculum and have been able to go on to the college or university of their choice in the United States.

Since IVLA is a private online school without a physical campus, we do not issue student visa for study in the United States. It is important that the student can read, write and speak English to take our courses.

For more information, check out: International Virtual Learning Academy

On Monday, June 23, 2008, HSLDA founder Mike Farris argued in defense of homeschooling in the California Court of Appeal in the now-infamous Rachel L. case. In February, this same court had ruled that homeschooling is illegal in California. The court later vacated its own decision in response to a request for rehearing filed by attorney for the father, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, with substantial assistance by Farris and other attorneys at HSLDA. Farris argued as a friend of the court on behalf of HSLDA’s 15,000 member families in California, as well as Focus on the Family, and Private and Home Educators of California.

Farris was joined in his defense of homeschooling by lawyers representing the Attorney General and Governor of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, California’s three largest homeschooling groups (California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and Christian Home Educators of California), Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Sunland Christian School, and Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Jeff Shafer, on behalf of the family.

“The weight of legal and scholarly authority presented to this court in defense of homeschooling is unprecedented,” said Farris, who has argued dozens of similar cases since founding HSLDA 25 years ago.

In addition to those who presented oral argument, friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the right of parents to homeschool were submitted by Pacific Legal Foundation, National Legal Foundation, Sutherland Institute, Liberty Counsel on behalf of 13 members of Congress, Gifted Homeschoolers Forum, et al, Seventh Day Adventist Church State Council, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (prepared by noted law professors David Llewellyn, John Eastman, and Erwin Chemerinsky), American Center for Law and Justice and The Western Center for Law and Policy.

Farris is guardedly optimistic that the three-judge panel will not repeat its earlier error, but he covets your prayers. “The homeschooling movement has been successful not because of the work of lawyers but because the Lord has blessed it,” noted Farris. “We must always remember Proverbs 21:1—‘The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever he wishes.’ ”

A decision is expected within a few weeks.

To read stay up to date on this case, visit this blog or HSLDA’s News Page