Posted on 03/11/2007 11:50:14 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
A Superior Court judge in New Jersey says homeschooling is just about the same as deliberate child abuse.
In fact, he says, he just might name a school district in his state as a defendant in a current court dispute, citing the district's "shocking" failure to monitor and test all students – including homeschoolers.
"In today's threatening world, where we seek to protect children from abuse, not just physical, but also educational abuse, how can we not monitor the educational welfare of all our children? A child in New Jersey, who recently was found unfed and locked in a putrid bedroom was allegedly 'homeschooled' and because no one, such as a teacher or nurse, was able to observe any abuse in a school setting, it went undiscovered," wrote Judge Thomas Zampino in a case that came before him.
That's even though New Jersey state law does forbid child abuse, and its regulations regarding homeschooling say parents or guardians are allowed "to educate the child at home." Further, the state law notes they are not required to submit any type of communication of intent to a local school board, nor are parents required to have their plans approved by a board.
(Story continues below)
In fact, state law allows a school board in New Jersey to act against a homeschooling parent only if there is "credible evidence that the parent, guardian or other person having custody or control of a school-age child is not causing the child either to attend school (public or nonpublic) or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school …"
Despite New Jersey state law, Zampino insists what heeds to happen is this:
Certain basic requirements and safeguards should be implemented that protect all children, once the decision to "homeschool" a child has been made by the parents, as follows: 1. A parent/guardian who seeks to homeschool his/her child(ren) must register the child(ren) in their home school district, so that no child slips through the cracks of our education system.
2. A curriculum must be presented and filed with the local board of education and some "homeschool" training seminar required for the teaching parent (a four-hour video would suffice).
3. Testing on the same standardized basis for all students shall be administered to all homeschool children on an annual basis to measure whether "equivalent instruction" is being received by a child "elsewhere than at school."
A New Jersey lawyer familiar with homeschooling precedents in his state told WND the judge suggests the parents in the divorce dispute work it out. But he said the judge's additional comments are alarming.
"He's presenting this as though it's authority," Christopher Brennan said. "He's just making this up, with no basis whatsoever, saying that this is what should be done."
The judge, in fact, didn't stop with just the New Jersey situation.
"Here, [a witness in court] testified that approximately two million of today's fifty five million school age children are presently being homeschooled in the United States. Such numbers outside the public school system cannot be left without any review requirements under the law," Zampino said.
"How can we have as existing law for these children, only two court decisions that are over 40 years old, and no state statute that outlines a framework for school districts when parents choose this alternative for their children" the judge asked.
The Home School Legal Defense Association, which works worldwide on behalf of homeschool students and projects, said it couldn't comment on the specific issues in the case. But the organization did note that the judge's words did not change New Jersey law.
"In order to protect individual freedoms, the founders of our nation wanted to be sure that governmental powers did not become overly concentrated. To prevent this, they wisely split power into three branches – legislative, judicial and executive. As the founders conceived it, the judicial branch has no power to make new laws. That power belongs to the legislature working through representatives elected by the people," the group said in a statement.
Brennan, however, noted that once a judge's opinion becomes available, it is easy for another judge to quote from that, or even cite it as a conclusion.
"What really is problematic [is] this is symptomatic of classic judicial activism. The Legislature clearly spells out what's required to educate a child in the state of New Jersey," Brennan said. "They've said, 'This is the requirement,' and it's just that they [homeschooling parents] have to provide an equivalent instruction."
The judge said the status of homeschooling, to him, isn't acceptable. His comments were prompted by concerns by Stephen Hamilton that his wife, Tara Hamilton, from whom he separated in 2006, was adequately teaching their children at home.
"In questioning by this court, the mother made it clear that in the ten years she had been homeschooling the children, no one from any Board of Education in Montclair (where they lived until October 2006) ever visited the home. Ms. Hamilton never went to any school or board office, no lesson plan was ever reviewed and no progress report or testing of the children was ever performed. This is shocking to the court," he wrote.
"In this day and age where we seek to protect children from harm and sexual predators, so many children are left unsupervised. It is further shocking to this court that in September, 2001 the New Jersey Department of Education published answers to frequently asked questions about homeschooling as a guide to local school districts that listed the following:
1. Parents/Guardians are not required by law to notify their public school district of their intention to educate the child elsewhere than at school. 2. The law does not require or authorize the local board of education to review and approve the curriculum or program of a child educated elsewhere than at school.
3. No certification to teach is required to be held by the parent.
4. No standardized test(s) are administered to the children.
The judge, however, said he wasn't attacking homeschooling.
His comments, rather, are "a statement that it is necessary to register those children for whom this alternative is chosen and to monitor that their educational needs are being adequately nurtured. Judicial interpretation of the statute requires such steps to measure 'equivalent instruction' when the alternative 'elsewhere than at school' is chosen by parents.'"
In the case at hand, involving the Hamilton family, the judge said the father has an administrative remedy at hand. He may contact the Ridgewood Board of Education "and the school district will file suit … against Ms. Hamilton for the children's non-attendance at school." When she then notifies the court she's chosen homeschooling she will then be required to show the school district it is equivalent, the judge said.
The HSLDA said the judge probably would not have been shocked had he been aware that New Jersey's homeschooling laws are similar to those in other states.
"The judge is mistaken, pure and simple," Brennan told WND. "A judge can be mistaken."
He said the two million students homeschooled in the United States now are not being neglected, either. They are, in fact, protected from being molested by teachers, which while rare, does happen.
In a commentary on the Constitutionally Correct site, the writers said New Jersey judges "who legislate from the bench are giving Massachusetts judges (and German jack boots) a run for their money. … The court's opinion is a judicial temper tantrum. The judge wails that New Jersey law doesn't fit his idea of what the law should be. Not only does New Jersey law not require government monitoring and testing of homeschoolers, the state gives public schools no legal authorization to do so…"
The reference to Germany was about an issue on which WND has reported extensively. In that case, police took into custody a 15-year-old student, Melissa Busekros, and a judge ordered her into a psychiatric hospital, for being homeschooled, which remains illegal in that country.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, has said that "the public has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion or motivated by different worldviews and in integrating minorities into the population as a whole."
That means, worldviews that do not align with those taught in Germany's public schools must be stamped out, he said.
The HSLD has called the case an "outrage."
Further, American homeschoolers should be concerned, as WND has reported, because the ease with which similar restrictions on free choice could be imposed in the United States.
Michael Farris, cofounder of the HSLDA, has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of parents to educate their children at home, in light of such developments in Europe.
Since when did that become the government's job? Who gave them the authority to do that?
The kid is 15 and doing college-level stuff.
I can't find anything wrong with that.
Sounds like a lot of public school kids.
What's the solution for kids who have failed the public school system?
I LOVE your characterization. I'm going to enhance it a slightly.
Black robed mullahs, dictating from the bench.
My first question would be, why did no one in his neighborhood notice that this child might be in trouble? Did they not even know he was there? And who, exactly, is alleging that he was homeschooled?
Probably fewer, by percentage, than parents whose children ARE in school, but are paying absolutely NO attention to what their kids are doing, so their kids fall further behind, then end up dropping out early in high school.
It is, in fact, exactly the way Leftists see guns. Since a few criminals may use them, we'll ban them completely, as if a criminal would suddenly start obeying the law at this point.
The likely outcome of banning guns is criminals have them, honest citizens do not.
The likely outcome of this judge's demands? Some New Jersey official telling a parent that you can't teach your children that homosexuality is a sin. And if you continue to do so, they'll be taken by the state.
I agree but I blame the idiot reporter's anti- homeschool bias for the outrageous statement and not the Judge who said no such thing.
The Judge objected to the fact that the child was never tested.
In fact, he says, he just might name a school district in his state as a defendant in a current court dispute, citing the district's "shocking" failure to monitor and test all students – including homeschoolers.
In Washington State, all we needed to homeschool was to notify the local school district that we wanted to homeschool and provide a copy of a yearly test from a recognized testing agency. We used the Stanford Achievement Test.
Not even bothering to test the child allowed these parent to not homeschool at all and treat the child like an animal. That was abuse.
A child in New Jersey, who recently was found unfed and locked in a putrid bedroom was allegedly 'homeschooled'.....
These parents were not HOMEschoolers.
These parents were NOschoolers. They were also NOfooders.
Yearly testing by means of a nationally recognized private achievement test protects not only the child but the reputation of those of us that have homeschooled successfully.
Not testing at all allows child abusing sickos to simply claim to be legitimate homeschoolers, teach their kids absolutely nothing and even lock them up without food in a filthy room as these sickos did to this child without anybody finding out about it.
I guess I need to read the thread to see if anyone has better self control than I do at this moment.
Any of your precious ones teenage girls? I am amazed how well I get along with my teenage daughter. I never had the relationship with my mom that I hope she and I have (we have never had a "fight," a few skirmishes, but nothing like I had with my mom).
I give all of the credit to homeschooling her and building a healthy relationship with her without the outside pressure. Both of my kids (other is a boy) are shocked when they see teenagers disrespect their parents.
God Bless you and your children in your journey. And we are proof that single parents can and do successfully homeschool!!!!!!
Why is this a compelling government interest? The government doesn't seem to bother with trying to make sure ALL kids are educated in the public schools. Sure, they have compulsory education laws that mandate that kids have to have a certain amount of 'seat time', but beyond that, public schools get away with graduating illerates every day. I daresy, again as a percentage, there are quite a few more illiterate kids coming put of public schools than there are coming out of homeschools every day.
Folks like to bring up the example of a high schooler who doesn't follow any sort of educational plan, but just does his own thing all day. What they don't see is that the kid could be learning a skill that could provide him with an steady income. Who knows? He could be learning valuable computer skills, or could be learning appliance repair or carpentry. Just because a kid isn't studying history, math or english, doesn't mean he isn't being educated. Most kids study those subjects as a preparation for college. Even some kids who were loosy goosey about their studies until halfway through school might decide they want to go to college after all. They can complete a full four years worth of academic work in a span of two years, if they're motivated.
Me: Given the number of "abuses" in public versus home school situations, I would argue that the intrusion of government between parent and child is a far greater danger than preventing a very rare case of "child abuse".
Thee: Unless you have access to the statistics (and are essentially omniscient regarding unreported abuse), you are basing your conclusion upon nothing more than a scientific wild-assed guess.
Me: Read what I posted, try really hard to remember some history, nad you will then (perhaps) understand that I was pointing out that allowing a bureaucracy between parent and child, putatively to prevent some sort of "educational abuse" to use the Libroid phrasiology of the judge, is assinine.
Do remember that for most of America's hsitory, schooling was a very local thing and the parents were very involved, not some huge bureaucracy.
The idea that a bureaucracy is good for education of the child is essentially socialist. The German attack on home schoolers is a case in point.
Are you perchance part of some agency, or a public scruel teacher, union and all?
Me; goober from a gooberment agency
Thee: As far as I am concerned, this undercuts your entire credibility for reasoned debate.
Me: Are you aware you have just labelled yourself as PC speech impaired. While I can understand your taking umbrage over my less than respectful terminology, dismissal of an argument for such reason is often indicative of either a mind of remarkable narrowness, or a desire to avoid the issues being discussed.
Me; When we first allowed some goober from a gooberment agency to displace G*d as the one to whom the parent was responsible for for the child until said child was an adult, AND when we assumed that the final authority for the child's raising was some goober instead of the parent to whom G*d gave the child,
Thee: It's not an either/or. The simple fact of the matter is that the government - especially in this more technical age - has a compelling interest in ensuring that children are adequately educated so that they have options other than welfare or slinging burgers at McDonalds. Additionally, while most homeschool parents are good decent folks doing their best to educate their children, there have been a few whose treatment of their children ranged from unfortunate neglect to active abuse. Abusive parents don't just answer to God - they answer to the State, and rightfully so.
Me: Your argument is based on the premise that we can prevent evil, particularly, the evil of abusive parents.
We can't.
hat we can try to do is balance the needs of teh "abused" child against the rest of teh society. In such a balance, I took the position that the certainty of egregious abuse of home schoolong families was far greater, much more certain, and far more damaging to the larger society than the possibility of perhaps preventing some case of "education abuse" by a swarm of educrats and lawyers under the watchful eye of JudgiePooh.
Me: Ya still wanna substitute some nameless, faceless, unaccountable goober for that child's [parents?]
Thee: Assuming I interpreted your sentence fragment correctly, in some cases, absolutely yes.
Me: Oopsie! Your bad! Try doing a sentence analysis again. Or, if your home schooling was a tad weak in that area, there are many sources for sentence analysis.
Thee: While government is not well-placed to protect a child's interest and should generally remain hands-off, there are some parents who are so astonishingly bad that the governemnt must intervene. No one else will.
Me: Here is the crux of our disagreement. Better a few cases of "education abuse" than the multitude of abuses certain to occur when the 900 pound bureaucratic gorilla is loosed on home schoolers.
Lest you weep for the home schooled who might be "educationally abused, consider the far greater probability that public schools will turn out far more "educationally abused".
Your emphasis on the rights of the state would lead me, and perhaps many others, to assume that you assume the needs of the state are superior to the rights of the parents.
Lots of luck finding that in the Constitution, fellow FReeper!
Thee: There are enough bad apples out there to justify some minimal reporting requirements. The only people who will have trouble with an annual curriculum plan, quarterly reports, and annual teaching are those who won't be teaching at all. I could find you (given enough digging) my own grade-school records kept when I was a homeschooled pupil.
Me: On this issue, I would defer to the home school associations, and the views of their members. To ask the public scruel educrats, or judgiePooh is to assure that the socialism impaired have been given an opportunity to empose their agenda.
Ultimately, I trust parents over the goobers, and likewise for socialism impaired judges.
It is an interesting subject, though. Thanks for the input and your perspectives.
GG
Law based upon exceptions is bad law.
This judge has two choices: (1) resignation, or (2) impeachment. The Founders and Franklin argued strongly for (2) in order to avoid the necessity of a 3rd option, in order to remove petty tyrants from public office.
Unfortunately, we tend to opt for (4), bend over. That's why we have more and more of them.
That was when education was optional, and a person could make a living with a 3rd-grade education. It is impossible to make a living without at least a high school education, and becoming increasingly difficult to compete in the global economy without post-secondary education (whether trade or college). Additionally - and equally importantly - that was before the breakdown of the American family. There are far too many parents who don't give a damn about their kids. Allowing those parents to "homeschool" is incredibly dangerous.
Are you perchance part of some agency, or a public scruel teacher, union and all?
Not that is relevant, but no.
While I can understand your taking umbrage over my less than respectful terminology, dismissal of an argument for such reason is often indicative of either a mind of remarkable narrowness, or a desire to avoid the issues being discussed.
I continued to engage you, and will do so if you continue to raise interesting points. Your terminology, however, is unnecessary and detracts from your perspective.
The idea that a bureaucracy is good for education of the child is essentially socialist.
This is a label that ends discussion. The question is whether this governmental interference is reasonable or not. I maintain it is.
Your argument is based on the premise that we can prevent evil, particularly, the evil of abusive parents.
Not really. It is based on the premise that we may be able to stop it or mitigate it. Child Protective Services, far from being the boogeyman, is far too often needed to intervene when the parents are unbelievably abusive. Unfortunately, sometimes homeschool parents abuse too.
Better a few cases of "education abuse" than the multitude of abuses certain to occur when the 900 pound bureaucratic gorilla is loosed on home schoolers.
Tell that to the little girl whose dad crawls into her bed every night. Tell that to the "homeschooled" kid whose mother didn't want to be torn away from her stories, so she let them run free without any schooling. Tell that to the kid who can't find a job because his education prepared him with no marketable skills. Lest you think I'm exaggerating, this goes on every day in America. It by no means is intended to be a slur against the overwhelming majority of homeschoolers who are good and decent folks - but it is a well-deserved slur upon those few who are monsters.
Your emphasis on the rights of the state would lead me, and perhaps many others, to assume that you assume the needs of the state are superior to the rights of the parents. Lots of luck finding that in the Constitution, fellow FReeper!
Federal Constitution? Nah. But these are - and always have been - traditional state police powers. This is nothing new. So, if you want, this is covered in the 10th Amendment.
I'm guessing the vast majority of those women were 'educated' in the public school system. This is why the tales of those few 'homeschooling' parents who neglect their kids' educations are so annoying. The numbers of those parents are SO small compared to the ones who truly care about their children and want the best education for them, no matter what it takes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.