In the News this week...

A friend emailed this very disturbing new story to me yesterday...

World Net Daily - Judge Orders Homeschoolers in Government Education  (check the link for the full story, I have included only some highlights below)

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."

"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.

The father, Phillip Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.

 

My applause to the Long family and I am praying that their appeal succeeds.  In fact, it's my understanding that some of the recently enacted education laws in California are being challenged as to their constitutionality; so I am praying about that as well.  Specifically, the laws that require that no reference is made to "mom and dad" or "husband and wife", for example, because that would be discriminatory to homosexuals.  Never mind that the law as it stands now specifically discriminates against those with traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Is it any wonder that we have no interest in moving to California??  Not that we've had any job offers or anything, I'm just saying...

 

And on a lighter note - I think...  I heard this one on the news and decided to find the story in print. 

Ohio School Suspends Boy over Mohawk  - So this kindergartner is suspended from a charter school because his mohawk haircut is a "distraction to other students"  Huh????  Like maybe the first day after a fresh cut it would be the topic of conversation, but how incompetent is the teacher if she can't direct the kids to the lesson????  Now I understand that the school has a dress code, and I happen to agree with that policy.  I think classroom situation schools, whether public or private, should have some sort of reasonable dress code, and it should be enforced.  The kids at this school have uniforms, it sounds like.  I looked at the school's website, and they do indeed have a dress code, specifically laid out on the website.  It addresses appropriate clothing and jewelry, but doesn't mentione haircuts anywhere.  It just says "grooming guidelines" but doesn't say what they are.  I imagine that when you enroll your child, you'd get a handbook spelling out some grooming guidelines.  I assume those would cover things like lice and filth.  Might even state an appropriate length for hair - perhaps boys' hair should not go past their collar or something like that.  But it doesn't say anything on the website about it.  And this kid gets the boot because he wants a mohawk.  His mom says she never received what the principal says were "previous warnings" about the disruptiveness of his 'do.  I personally like his cut.  Go have a look at his picture in the news story at ABC (link above).  Now look at this:

 

That's MY kid.  Not his mug shot, although that's what his expression might lead you to believe.  That's the haircut he chose.  Also for your consideration:

 

Y'know what?  I have never yet found his haircut to be disruptive or distracting, in my class, or in any other.  And you'd think that if anyone was likely to be "distracted" by this type of hairstyle (so often equated with rebelliousness and anarchy - eyeroll) it would be the oh-so-conservative Christian homeschool types we hang with.  LOL  Everybody likes it.  True, my hoodlum kids tend to stand out just a little bit in the Homeschool Fellowship yearbook...    However, this cut doesn't violate our school dress code.  Which I admit is pretty relaxed, since pajamas are quite acceptable.  I did recently amend the school policy to insist that boys, as well as girls, wear shirts during school hours.     I know, I'm cracking the whip...

 

So we've got schools in California that insist that children can use whichever bathroom - boys or girls - they "identify" with; boys can wear dresses to school because they have to be free to express their transgender identity; and no one can say anything negative about it.  And then we've got a charter school in Ohio that kicks kids out because their hair is a little unusual but not breaking the rules.     Gotta love government education.  'Nuff said.