Lynn at Homeschool2.0 has a post up about a recent question and answer period the DEED (Alaska’s state education department) held concerning the proposed regulations that would affect in-district programs.  The bottom line of the reasoning for the proposed regulations is the resemblance to the statewide programs and as a way to establish “equity”.  That seems like shoddy reasoning to me.  

And there are people who wonder why homeschool advocates want to make a distinction between public schooling at home and homeschooling? Yes, there are those in government who don’t want to complicate their minds with details.  They reason like this, “Call them the same thing, regulate them the same way; and now it’s fair.”

Would it really be a stretch of imagination to think Alaska’s DEED could apply the same reasoning to its independent homeschoolers and those who call themselves “public homeschoolers”?

That’s the title of my commentary over at the NCSW blog. If it sounds of interest to you, click over and read.

Can a Constitutional Amendment Protect Parental Rights? by Larry and Susan Kaseman can be listened to or read here.

The Kaseman’s write in part:

Parental rights are being challenged these days, and we need to work to act in ways that will maintain them. At first glance, adding a parental rights amendment to the U S Constitution might seem like a good way to make these rights more secure. In fact, some well-known homeschoolers are promoting such an amendment. However, an amendment would not protect our rights and, in fact, would actually undermine them. Fortunately, there are other, better, more effective ways to maintain our rights. This column will discuss problems with a constitutional amendment and suggest actions we can take to maintain our parental rights.

Can a Constitutional Amendment Protect Parental Rights? - Kaseman

The title of this blog post assumes that the author sees a conflict in the first place. With this blog post, I’d like to take a look into the issue of parental rights in regards to public school at home programs.

In the context of public school at home programs (aka virtual charter schools, public virtual schools, home-based charter schooling, cyber charters, etc.), the concept of parental rights may arise. Note this quote from Wisconsin state senator Kedzie and included in the previous blog entry:

Saving the non-traditional, virtual school was the right thing to do and an example of democracy in action. It was rewarding to be a part of this effort to protect a families right to educate their child at home, while at the same time, maintain stringent educational standards that taxpayers expect of public education in Wisconsin.

Here, parental rights are about a family’s right to educate their child at home with public funding. However, note the other side of the coin to this type of parental rights; maintaining stringent educational standards that meet taxpayers’ expectations.

Parental rights in the context of homeschooling is generally about educating one’s children apart from public schooling. If there is no freedom to opt out of public schooling, then there are no real parental rights. However when parental rights are being referred to in the context of public school at home programs, it is tied to public funds to educate one’s child at home. The ability of parents to teach their children as they feel directed is crucial to homeschooling freedoms. This ability is not crucial in the case concerning public school at home programs.

Parents are not the teachers, but they are required to make sure the children are following the cyber school’s curriculum. (link)

Parents here are mere guides or facilitators for the cyber school. The parents in this case are volunteering for the cyber school. The parent’s role is kept in check because of the public cyber school’s accountability requirements. There are accountability requirements in place which distinguish this form of public education from private education whatever the type of public school at home program. These accountability requirements are necessary to prevent financial mismanagement, fraud and to ensure taxpayers’ money is well spent. Proponents of public school at home programs seem, in general, to understand the connection between accountability for public funds and the viability of their program.

In the necessity of keeping the public funds flowing, families who have chosen public school at home options should be willing to make the case that their option is public schooling albeit in the home, and that they are willing to be accountable for their government funds.

In order to preserve the freedom of educating children apart from public schooling, it is important to keep reminding government, the media and the general public that since home school families do not accept government funding they are not under the same accountability requirements as those who enroll their children in public school at home programs.

Lynn at Homeschool2.0 blog states that in Alaska:

EVERY public homeschool program, local and statewide, is out of compliance with this aspect of NCLB because the parent is the primary instructor not a “highly qualified teacher as defined by NCLB.

Could this be an opportunity for some landmark court case for parental rights and a downfall for the “NCLB” requirement of a ‘highly qualified’ teacher in Alaska? Parents could hope so. My personal opinion, though, is that the use of the term “public homeschool” confuses the situation as “NCLB” requirements do not apply to homeschooled students. Currently in Alaska, there are three distinct public school at home programs which could be affected by proposed regulations. These are statewide correspondence schools, in-district correspondence schools and charter schools (which can be correspondence schools). There is a strong likelihood that if a state government finds their public school at home programs are not aligned with state or federal laws, that steps will be taken to make the necessary adjustment. Wisconsin legislature made such an adjustment with their state laws and virtual charter schools. This legal adjustment became necessary when a Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled the Wisconsin Virtual Academy was violating state law by allowing parents to assume the duties of state-licensed teachers. The public virtual schools were at risk of being closed. The solution to this problem was that the role of the parent and the role of the teacher were brought into alignment with state laws. Virtual charter schools are now required to have certified, licensed teachers in each content area.

Back to Alaska, Lynn uses the term, “public homeschools”. Is there a possibility that a push for alignment with state laws, “NCLB” and parental rights for public school at home programs could negatively affect those families who are homeschooling apart from public schooling? Sometimes a squeaky wheel gets the oil, but at what cost? How would change affect the public school at home programs in Alaska if the parents’ and the teachers’ roles were readjusted with “NCLB” and state laws as they were in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin’s legislative fix for its virtual schools became law on April 7, 2008.

Wisconsin: Virtual Schools Will Remain On-Line

April 11, 2008
by Wisconsin State Senator Kedzie

snip:
…in December 2007, an Appellate Court handed down a decision that nearly ended this program and the twelve active on-line schools.
The Court agreed with a suit brought by the state teachers union that an on-line school in Ozaukee County was in violation of several state laws, including charter schools law, teacher licensing requirements, and open enrollment law. The Court further argued that virtual schools should not receive state funding, which further endangered the educational success of more than 3,500 students.

snip:
After a tenuous and sometimes spirited debate on the best educational resources for our children, the Legislature came to an agreement on a legislative fix to the Court’s decision, and comprehensive virtual school legislation was enacted into law on April 7, 2008.

snip:
The new law, which was crafted through an amendment by Representative Brett Davis and Senator John Lehman, will allow the schools to remain open under certain conditions. Those conditions include an enrollment cap of 5,250 students, a requirement that financial audits of the schools be done by the state, various instructional requirements for teachers and staff, and that virtual schools are subject to Open Records requests.

snip:
Saving the non-traditional, virtual school was the right thing to do and an example of democracy in action. It was rewarding to be a part of this effort to protect a families’ right to educate their child at home, while at the same time, maintain stringent educational standards that taxpayers expect of public education in Wisconsin.

(end of snips)

More info:

Wisconsin’s legislative remedy:

snip:

- Legalize the current operation of virtual schools, and require all virtual contracts be subject to pen records law

- Allow DPI to operate an on-line academy

- Require a minimum number of hours of educational opportunities and school days

- Require certified, licensed teachers in each content area

- Require teachers to respond to student/parent inquiry within 24 hours during school week

- Provide parents with all contact information for school boards, administration and staff

- Require virtual schools to have a parent advisory board that meets regularly

- Define truancy for virtual school students, and requires truancy reporting

- Require virtual educators to have 30 hours of staff development in online teaching

(end of snip)