Posts Tagged ‘education’


CA: Know the Code

California School Immunization RecordFamilies nationwide have been focused on tightening their belts, with the rising gas prices, rampant inflation has hit the family budget hard. It’s no wonder the State of California has financial troubles and this time we can’t blame the legislators.This time the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the State of California Department of Education — once again, we find them wasting taxpayer dollars.

AB 354 was passed by the California Assembly and was approved by then Governor Schwarzenegger on September 29, 2010. The provisions spelled out in the bill become effective on July 1, 2011. The bill makes several significant changes in the law.

Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her first admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, including hepatitis B, pertussis (whooping cough), and varicella (chickenpox), and any other disease deemed appropriate by the State Department of Public Health, taking into consideration the recommendations of specified entities. This bill would add to these entities the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Basically, this just means the American Academy of Family Physicians has been elevated to a God-like status. They were added to the group of medical professionals in the U.S., who have a voice in how the rest of the population is tortured (just checking to see if you are following this). No big deal really.

There are a couple of issues I have with this piece of legislation but first I’d like to get right to the point.

Today, I received notification of an alert that went out to HSLDA members and a select number of subscribers to Private and Home Educators of California, which was then emailed to California State-wide homeschooling organizations, encouraging parents to comply with requirements that are not required under California law. You can read the alert here: NEW Required Documentation for All Students.

The new law does not require you to use any certain form. Yet their letter says…

The current “PM 286B  form (1/02)” does not have a space to document the Tdap   immunization. In order to document the compliance status of the student to the Tdap  booster requirement on the PM 286B, the California Department of Public Health has created a sticker, form PM 286 S, which is to be completed and placed on the upper left corner of the front of the existing PM 286B “Blue Card”, which should already be in the student’s file.

Instead of simply editing the current form, which is already online (PM 286B) available for anyone to download, someone at the California Department of Education and/or the California Department of Health got the bright idea to print off millions of stickers and mail them, using the U.S. Postal Service to households throughout California. This is a huge cost to taxpayers and huge waste of taxpayer dollars. I hope the new Governor gets a handle on things soon — from the looks of things employees are still wasting our money.

This is huge, we are talking about printing and mailing stickers to be attached to EVERY single file for EVERY single school aged child in the state of California and HSLDA isn’t giving private home educators good legal advice. The law does not spell out any such form that must be used. It simply required a record to be kept on file. Read the legislation for yourself, it’s written in pretty straight-forward language, the state even provides handy definitions and references.

I simply can’t understand why HSLDA would recommend that private school administrators (home educators) contact the Department of Health. Part of the problem with that is this bill also gives more teeth to the law, which should worry you. Look at this provision:

Incentives to public health authorities to design innovative and creative programs that will promote and achieve full and timely immunization of children.

Specific “incentives” are not spelled out. It could mean anything.

Commencing July 1, 2011, notwithstanding subdivision (b), full immunization against hepatitis B shall not be a condition by which the governing authority admits or advances any pupil to the 7th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school.

This bothers me…

Hepatitis B virus is carried in and transmitted by the blood and body fluids of an infected person. People can spread hepatitis B virus without even knowing they have it. The first stage of it may lead to loss of desire to eat, feeling tired, pains in muscles, joints, or stomach, diarrhea or vomiting, yellow skin or eyes and death. You can recover from this illness (90-95% do), but still spread it through the above mentioned. [Learn more…]

AB 354 (2010) is a huge power grab. Check out this next provision.

The department may specify the immunizing agents which may be utilized and the manner in which immunizations are administered.

That statement gave me cause for pause. This appears to give a great deal of power to those that administer immunizations. But wait, it gets even better.

The department may adopt emergency regulations to implement subdivisions (c) and (d) including, but not limited to, requirements for documentation and immunization status reports, in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). The initial adoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed to be an emergency and considered by the Office of Administrative Law as necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare. Emergency regulations adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in effect for no more than 180 days.

I assume this means if an outbreak of whooping cough takes place, the powers that be can quarantine your children and/or your entire family for up to 6-months, but the emergency powers haven’t been spelled out here.

I have plenty more to say on this topic but I’m waiting until I get a little sleep and I have more details come in. I would love to hear what you think on this topic.

California homeschoolers have been told for years to “Know the Code” and follow the law — it’s still that simple. This bill has some teeth in it and asking homeschoolers to go above and beyond that which is required by law is simply bad advice, in my opinion. These are simply that: my own thoughts on this topic – I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


Mississippi Homeschooling

If homeschooling is legal in all 50 states and in many countries, then I ask, “Why is this judge fishing for homeschoolers?

Mississippi Judge Goes Fishing for Home-schoolers

A Mississippi judge appears to be on a personal fishing expedition to find all the home-schoolers in his jurisdiction – and despite federal law and his own state’s Education Department, he is not taking “no” for an answer.

On March 24, Judge Joe Dale Walker of Mississippi’s 13th Chancery District Court ordered school attendance officers within his five-county jurisdiction to send him the names and addresses of all home-schooled students and parents in their districts. “The order,” explains the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), “has no case number, no county of venue, and lists no parties to any dispute. It appears to be simply information that the judge would like to have.” Read more…

Who does this judge think he is? Why doesn’t this judge respect the privacy of the homeschoolers in Mississippi and what is HSLDA doing about it?   They seem to get their hands in a great many pies. Only time will tell if HSLDA is helping or hurting the cause of homeschoolers in Mississippi.

The article goes on to say…

Clearly Walker has vastly exceeded his authority in this case, and his order should be rescinded or overturned. If he is permitted to proceed with his fishing expedition, it will open the door for other judges to seek massive amounts of information unrelated to any specific cases before them. “The plain fact is if judges start behaving this way – people [could be targeted] who attend churches or synagogues [or other groups],” HSLDA attorney James Mason told WND, adding that it “would have a chilling effect on freedom of association, and the exercise of other freedoms.”

Let’s hope this judge is put in his place. His flagrant abuse of power must not be tolerated. This judge should be brought up on charges for abusing the power of his office.


HSLDA Runs Roughshod in NH

New Hampshire homeschooling parents formed an online group, called NH Homeschool Defense League, in December of 2008 in response to two very restrictive homeschooling proposals in the legislature, which required, among other things, evaluations by certified teachers. These proposals were eventually defeated.

HSLDA Runs Roughshod in New Hampshire

This group worked together for nine months and recently submitted legislation to recognize that a parent’s duty to instruct his child supercedes the state’s duty. [See copy below.]

We have been open and shared our proposal with other homeschoolers and HSLDA. Mike Donnelly at HSLDA said he supported our efforts and our goals. However, at the last minute, without notifying our group, Mike Donnelly initiated opposing legislation, contacting only a few leaders of HSLDA’s member group in our state, CHENH, to gain support, without ever showing them a copy of our proposal. Rank-and-file NH members of HSLDA and CHENH were never consulted or informed that HSLDA had submitted legislation on their behalf.

HSLDA thinks our group “went too far” in recognizing a parent’s right to be the primary instructor of his own child. HSLDA would prefer state jurisdiction and oversight of parents. In order to maintain control over the NH legislative process, HSLDA initiated its own legislation.

It’s a conflict of interest for an out-of-state organization to introduce legislation which will directly protect its own livelihood. This is the first time in 20-years that HSLDA has initiated legislation in NH. The last time they did so was when they wrote the existing NH home education law back in 1990, which they have consistently termed “model legislation.” Apparently, that’s no longer the case. Their new legislation, though superficially an improvement, retains the state’s jurisdiction over home education and does not prevent state rule-making.

If anyone would like to help, please contact Rep. Bates and politely ask him to withdraw HSLDA’s bill. Let New Hampshire homeschoolers determine their own destiny.

Representative David Bates (R)

Doris Hohensee,

New Hampshire
NH Homeschool Defense League

Here is a copy of our legislative proposal

Text added in CAPITALS; text removed struck out.

NH RSA 193:1 Duty of Parent; Compulsory Attendance by Pupil.

I. ALL PARENTS SHALL INSTRUCT THEIR CHILDREN OR CAUSE THEM TO BE INSTRUCTED. A parent of any child at least 6 years of age and under 18 years of age SHALL INSTRUCT HIS CHILD OR shall cause such child to attend the public school to which the child is assigned in the child’s resident district. Such child shall attend full time when such school is in session unless:


(a) (b) The child is attending a New Hampshire public school outside the district to which the child is assigned or an approved New Hampshire private school for the same time;

(b) The child is receiving home education pursuant to RSA 193-A and is therefore exempt from this requirement;

NH RSA 193-A: Home Education

The deadline to file the titles of House bills in NH was September 25, 2009. Bill numbers have not been allocated. The deadline for the submission of the text of a proposal is Nov. 1, 2009.

HSLDA’s proposal strips the current home education law of some regulations, leaving in place a notification procedure and the state’s right to oversee parents as if they were operating “public” home education programs.

CHENH leaders were told by Mike Donnelly that the NH Homeschool Defense League went “too far” on behalf of parents to place parent’s duty to instruct his child over the state’s duty in our proposal. HSLDA needed to initiate its own bill to maintain control over the NH legislative process.

HSLDA’s proposal with strike outs:

Proposed legislation to replace 193A

Delete all of 193-A:2, 3, 5 – 10

Section 193-A:4 is revised as follows:

I. Parents who provide home education under this chapter Instruction shall provide be deemed home education if it consists of instruction in science, mathematics, language, government, history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the history of the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and music. Home education shall be provided by the parent for his own child, or an adult designated by the parent. unless the provider is as otherwise agreed upon by the appropriate parties named in paragraph II.

II. Parents who elect to provide home education shall inform the superintendent of their resident school district, a non public school principal or the Department of Education by filing a notice of intent which shall include the following information: The department of education, resident district superintendent, or a nonpublic school shall work with parents upon request in meeting the requirements of this section.

(a) The child’s name;

(b) The child’s age;

(c) The current address of the child;

(d) The names, telephone numbers and addresses of the parent who has custody of the child and;

(e) That the parent will provide instruction in the subjects listed in this section commensurate with the child’s age and ability.

III. A notice of intent shall be filed within thirty days from the time the child begins home education and is not required thereafter unless home education is terminated and subsequently resumed. The parent of the child shall notify the person with whom the parent first filed the notice of intent within thirty days after termination of home education stating that the child is no longer being instructed at home. If home education is resumed, the parent shall file another notice of intent with the resident school superintendent, Department of Education or non-public school principal within thirty days.

Join NH Homeschool Defense League group to stay informed about legislative issues in New Hampshire.


Legal Mumbo Jumbo

  • This is an educational and critical site and, as such, is protected by the 1st Amendment's right to free speech.
  • This site is neither endorsed, nor sponsored by, nor affiliated with Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).
  • HSLDA and Home School Legal Defense Association are registered trademarks of Home School Legal Defense Association.