A recent California decision could make it more difficult to homeschool in the state of California. A judge decided that you had to have a teaching certificate to homeschool.
To an outsider, that might sound pretty good. Doesn't a teaching certificate teach you how to educate? Don't we want our homeschool parents to do the best job possible?
I actually thought about going the teaching certificate route when I considered moving to California. But other than perhaps fulfilling a few legal requirements, a teaching certificate would not prepare anybody to homeschool. In addition, the homeschooling teacher would have to become more prepared than ANY public school teacher out there, because in order to become certified to teach a child from Kindergarten to 12th grade, you would need to receive ALL of these certifications:
Elementary School Teaching Credential
- get a bachelor's degree
- complete a multiple subject teacher preparation program, including student teaching
- pass the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment
- the initial certification lasts for 5 years, within that time period a teacher would have to also need to complete additional requirements for a clear credential, which would allow them to teach their second child
Earn a Single Subject Teaching Credential for all required California high school subjects
* English
* Mathematics
* Social Science
* Biological Sciences
* Physics
* Languages other than English or art
* Physical Education
- get a Bachelor's degree (well, at least you have one from certifying for elementary school)
- complete a single subject teacher preparation program including more student teaching
- achieve a passing score in the subject examinations for all 7 required teaching areas
There are a few other hoops that need to be jumped through, involving English proficiency (perhaps for people that might need to homeschool ESL students?), constitution courses, and computer skills, but you get the idea.
I'm sure that 90% of public school teachers do not have all those credentials, but that's how the state of California is heading. A homeschool teacher would have to spend more time jumping through hoops than she'd have to do in actual teaching time!
What would a teaching certificate get you, anyway? Would it help you learn to teach your own children? Not much. Teaching programs prepare you to teach a large group of children. It helps you manage a classroom. Is all that student teaching that a homeschool mom would have to go through help them at all when they're sitting down at the kitchen table teaching US History to their 7 year old? Probably not, unless perhaps she has 30 children in school. Not even the Duggars are close to that (some of their kids are already grown).
I am not completely opposed to having homeschool families have some sort of... education. Perhaps a child development course in the earlier grades? Maybe a course on how children learn? Perhaps a basic proficiency test. But to require someone to receive 8 different teaching credentials in order to teach 1 child (or maybe a few more) is ridiculous. Teaching credentials designed to teach someone how to manage classrooms and teach multiple children are useless in the homeschooling environment. And it's ridiculous for this judge to make the comparison. I don't need to learn how to become a mechanic to learn how to put gas in my car. Neither do I need to learn how to manage a classroom of unruly high schoolers in order to learn how to teach one (hopefully well-mannered) child of mine English.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Friday, March 7, 2008
HSLDA Needs You! Please sign their petition.
If you are a homeschooler or a friend of homeschooling, please sign this petition at the Homeschool Legal Defense Association web site. Currently, the Supreme Court of California plans to publish the appellate court opinion that I commented on earlier. The ruling basically stated that it was illegal to homeschool without a teaching certification. If that happens, any court in California could use this ruling to prosecute other homeschooling families in the state.
Depublishing the opinion is what HSLDA recommends at this point.
Although I don't live in California and many people do not, the rights of homeschoolers everywhere should concern us at least a little. Please take the time to sign the petition. Thanks!
Depublishing the opinion is what HSLDA recommends at this point.
Although I don't live in California and many people do not, the rights of homeschoolers everywhere should concern us at least a little. Please take the time to sign the petition. Thanks!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Why We Didn't Move To California
Me and my husband met in California. I went to college in California. My husband grew up in California. But when we were living in Italy, and I was getting out of the Navy, and could move anywhere in the United States that we wanted to, we chose to move anywhere but California. Why? Because they like to harass homeschoolers.
A few years ago, it was in the news every fall. Someone would be told by their school districts that homeschooling was illegal and they were required to send their child to public school, yadda yadda. This happened for two or three years in a row. For the last couple of years it's been quiet. But now, California has a new harassment case in the courts. What a surprise.
Many people who have been keeping an eye on education know about California State Bill 777, which requires public schools to actively portray homosexuality and homosexuals in a positive light. Several family and religious advocacy groups have been encouraging people in California to pull their children out of public schools as a result.
Recently, a California judge has ruled a mother of 8 to put two of her children into public schools.
In this case, the parents were following the laws, which in the state of California require you to either a) establish a private school, b) have your child taught by an accredited teacher, or c) have your child homeschool under an umbrella school. The family in question had been using option c to homeschool. Since no laws were being broken, why are these people being singled out?
The judge says that keeping the children at home deprived them of interaction with people outside of the family, people that could help if something was amiss in the family, and the ability to develop emotionally into a broader world than their parents "cloistered setting."
None of the judge's arguments are a part of the law. He is just legislating from the bench. While it is good for kids to get out and make friends, that's not part of the law.
I like our laws here in Arizona. Tell the people that you're homeschooling when your child is old enough to go to school, teach them, and you're good. I haven't heard of any recent cases where parents are being harassed in this state either. And I do get my kids out to be with other people. This week, my daughter has played with her neighbor friend, played with her friends at church, been to Sunday School, and spent the afternoon playing with some more friends and evidently pouring sand all over her brother's hair in the process (somehow he had bucketloads of sand on his scalp yesterday). We would have been to the library as well, but my car battery needs to be replaced and so it's not working right now.
Hopefully, this case will get overturned on appeal. And hopefully, what happens in California stays in California. If not, I'm already throwing around a few alternatives if things do become hostile to homeschoolers in Arizona.
A few years ago, it was in the news every fall. Someone would be told by their school districts that homeschooling was illegal and they were required to send their child to public school, yadda yadda. This happened for two or three years in a row. For the last couple of years it's been quiet. But now, California has a new harassment case in the courts. What a surprise.
Many people who have been keeping an eye on education know about California State Bill 777, which requires public schools to actively portray homosexuality and homosexuals in a positive light. Several family and religious advocacy groups have been encouraging people in California to pull their children out of public schools as a result.
Recently, a California judge has ruled a mother of 8 to put two of her children into public schools.
In this case, the parents were following the laws, which in the state of California require you to either a) establish a private school, b) have your child taught by an accredited teacher, or c) have your child homeschool under an umbrella school. The family in question had been using option c to homeschool. Since no laws were being broken, why are these people being singled out?
The judge says that keeping the children at home deprived them of interaction with people outside of the family, people that could help if something was amiss in the family, and the ability to develop emotionally into a broader world than their parents "cloistered setting."
None of the judge's arguments are a part of the law. He is just legislating from the bench. While it is good for kids to get out and make friends, that's not part of the law.
I like our laws here in Arizona. Tell the people that you're homeschooling when your child is old enough to go to school, teach them, and you're good. I haven't heard of any recent cases where parents are being harassed in this state either. And I do get my kids out to be with other people. This week, my daughter has played with her neighbor friend, played with her friends at church, been to Sunday School, and spent the afternoon playing with some more friends and evidently pouring sand all over her brother's hair in the process (somehow he had bucketloads of sand on his scalp yesterday). We would have been to the library as well, but my car battery needs to be replaced and so it's not working right now.
Hopefully, this case will get overturned on appeal. And hopefully, what happens in California stays in California. If not, I'm already throwing around a few alternatives if things do become hostile to homeschoolers in Arizona.
Monday, January 14, 2008
What's Wrong With California? - Thermostat Control
I used to live in California, and I know a lot of great people that live there. I know an excellent church in San Diego... if you ever happen to be there on a Sunday, be sure to check out Lighthouse Baptist Church. I love Disneyland... but there is a reason that I don't live there any more.
For several years in a row (although I didn't hear anything in the last couple of years), in the fall I'd always hear about some poor homeschool teacher who was threatened with losing their kids or something because they were homeschooling. While California is a state where it is legal to homeschool (as it is in every state), for a while there, they were harassing homeschoolers left and right. They're also the state where Across The Centuries - that oh-so-lovely Islamic-friendly textbook where you get to assume a Moslem name, pray to Allah and play jihad games - is part of the standard curriculum in many schools. And let's not forget that you have to promote homosexuality in the public school curriculum now.
But the newest news from California doesn't involve any attempts to conform the populace into homosexual Moslems... this time they want to invite the 1984 lifestyle into your living room. Specifically when it comes to temperature.
Next month, the California legislature is expected to approve a measure that would force all new homes, or homes undergoing significant remodeling, to install thermostats that could be controlled via radio frequency. The whole point is to allow the power company to change the temperature of your house based on the available power. They want to be able to control how hot or cold it is in your house.
Now I like to conserve electricity more than anyone. At least in the summer. Forget a temperature of 72 degrees... in the summer I like to keep the thermostat somewhere between 84 and 87 degrees. I just hate to see high power bills, and I don't mind the heat. In the winter though, I like to keep it around 74 during the day because I get cold easily... 70 at night.
I wonder how this radio controlled frequency device would work on cold-blooded peons like me. Maybe they'll turn my thermostat up to 90 if they are running low on power... which I guess might be okay... but then when they get power back, are they going to try to turn it back down to 75 or so? Are they going to try to freeze me out of my house? Give me a much larger power bill than I want because they turn the temperature down lower than I want? Well, they won't with me because I don't live in California, but maybe I have another heat-twin in the Golden State... will they make her suffer?
I suppose in the winter they'd be less likely to take over temperature controls because the rolling blackouts usually occur in the summer when it's hot.
Despite the fact that it won't affect me - yet... there's that whole poem of "they went after the smokers, but since I wasn't a smoker... I said nothing .... then they came after me, and there was no one left to speak up." What kind of a society do we live in where Californians will stand for this? Maybe someone has a medical problem where they need it to be a certain temperature? I know that my husband has a problem with getting too cold because it can flare up his sickle cell anemia. Or if we look at it from the bigger picture... what business is it of California's if I use my money on air conditioning or if I spend it all on Haagen-Daaz? Or beer? Or if I send it all to Mexico (wait, I guess they're okay with that last one).
I wrote just a few days ago that I believe that our country is headed for difficult economic times... very difficult ones. I wonder what will happen if/when that happens. I read the other day about a kid during the depression who was made fun of because of being dirty... mom had to choose between buying a bar of soap or a dozen eggs, and she chose to buy food. What would we as a populace do if struck in a depression now? Are they going to let people that can't afford their sewer bills any more to dig an outhouse in their backyard? Will they take children away from their parents because they can't afford soap? Of course, everybody else would be in the same boat, so the government probably wouldn't want to take away the soapless children because then they'd have to pay someone to take care of them. But who knows, our government hasn't made a lot of sense lately in a lot of areas.
But back to California. Wouldn't it be a whole lot better if California made the temperature control program voluntary instead of mandating it? You could provide incentives like giving them a slight discount on their electric rates when the system was activated. Couldn't the government just ask Californians to conserve when there was a power crunch? Maybe suggest that they turn their thermostats up to 100 or something?
I realize that rolling blackouts are a problem in California during the summer... but reducing rolling blackouts by telling them what temperature they can keep their homes at is worse than the problem itself.
For several years in a row (although I didn't hear anything in the last couple of years), in the fall I'd always hear about some poor homeschool teacher who was threatened with losing their kids or something because they were homeschooling. While California is a state where it is legal to homeschool (as it is in every state), for a while there, they were harassing homeschoolers left and right. They're also the state where Across The Centuries - that oh-so-lovely Islamic-friendly textbook where you get to assume a Moslem name, pray to Allah and play jihad games - is part of the standard curriculum in many schools. And let's not forget that you have to promote homosexuality in the public school curriculum now.
But the newest news from California doesn't involve any attempts to conform the populace into homosexual Moslems... this time they want to invite the 1984 lifestyle into your living room. Specifically when it comes to temperature.
Next month, the California legislature is expected to approve a measure that would force all new homes, or homes undergoing significant remodeling, to install thermostats that could be controlled via radio frequency. The whole point is to allow the power company to change the temperature of your house based on the available power. They want to be able to control how hot or cold it is in your house.
Now I like to conserve electricity more than anyone. At least in the summer. Forget a temperature of 72 degrees... in the summer I like to keep the thermostat somewhere between 84 and 87 degrees. I just hate to see high power bills, and I don't mind the heat. In the winter though, I like to keep it around 74 during the day because I get cold easily... 70 at night.
I wonder how this radio controlled frequency device would work on cold-blooded peons like me. Maybe they'll turn my thermostat up to 90 if they are running low on power... which I guess might be okay... but then when they get power back, are they going to try to turn it back down to 75 or so? Are they going to try to freeze me out of my house? Give me a much larger power bill than I want because they turn the temperature down lower than I want? Well, they won't with me because I don't live in California, but maybe I have another heat-twin in the Golden State... will they make her suffer?
I suppose in the winter they'd be less likely to take over temperature controls because the rolling blackouts usually occur in the summer when it's hot.
Despite the fact that it won't affect me - yet... there's that whole poem of "they went after the smokers, but since I wasn't a smoker... I said nothing .... then they came after me, and there was no one left to speak up." What kind of a society do we live in where Californians will stand for this? Maybe someone has a medical problem where they need it to be a certain temperature? I know that my husband has a problem with getting too cold because it can flare up his sickle cell anemia. Or if we look at it from the bigger picture... what business is it of California's if I use my money on air conditioning or if I spend it all on Haagen-Daaz? Or beer? Or if I send it all to Mexico (wait, I guess they're okay with that last one).
I wrote just a few days ago that I believe that our country is headed for difficult economic times... very difficult ones. I wonder what will happen if/when that happens. I read the other day about a kid during the depression who was made fun of because of being dirty... mom had to choose between buying a bar of soap or a dozen eggs, and she chose to buy food. What would we as a populace do if struck in a depression now? Are they going to let people that can't afford their sewer bills any more to dig an outhouse in their backyard? Will they take children away from their parents because they can't afford soap? Of course, everybody else would be in the same boat, so the government probably wouldn't want to take away the soapless children because then they'd have to pay someone to take care of them. But who knows, our government hasn't made a lot of sense lately in a lot of areas.
But back to California. Wouldn't it be a whole lot better if California made the temperature control program voluntary instead of mandating it? You could provide incentives like giving them a slight discount on their electric rates when the system was activated. Couldn't the government just ask Californians to conserve when there was a power crunch? Maybe suggest that they turn their thermostats up to 100 or something?
I realize that rolling blackouts are a problem in California during the summer... but reducing rolling blackouts by telling them what temperature they can keep their homes at is worse than the problem itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
