<p>
[quote]
To deny the ongoing, continous evolution of life on this planet requires one willfully ignore reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe that. It's just that evolution is just a theory, and I won't believe evolution until it is a well-proven fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One cannot deny microevolution. It's just that Christians don't believe that macroevolution is possible i.e. humans could not have evolved from single-celled organisms.</p>
<p>Remember that the vast majority of schools are busy focusing on state-wide standardized tests and barely brush through evolution. The biology textbooks I've seen have only a page or two about evolution and are inconclusive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true, and also, I admit that I only have a high school knowledge of biology (which isn't much since our biology teacher sucked), and I will be taking AP Biology next year, so maybe it'll talk more about evolution. But as for now, and my current knowledge of what I know of evolution so far, it just seems that evolution, and believing we evolved from a different species is just based on a theory, and until I hear of a new species, such as a new animal, that has evolved, then I suspect I will still have trouble accepting evolution.</p>
<p>P.S. Sorry, didn't mean to turn this thread into an evolution and creation thread. My bad. Feel free to go back to talking about California and home-school parents after you respond to me (if you want to).</p>
<p>Remember that "theory" in scientific terms means something different than they way we use it in common speech. The "theory of evolution" is a theory in the same way as the "theory of gravity." I'm assuming you don't have a problem with gravity.</p>
<p>The way you are using "theory" (as in it's <em>only</em> a theory) is more analogous to what science calls a "hypothosis." Theory, in scientific terms, means it has been repeatedly tested and never found to be false. They use the word theory for that because science does not cease study where there is more to learned, they will always be open to evidence that will change or contradict an assumption. So far, no such evidence (that is, rational scientific evidence) has arisen in regards to evolution.</p>
<p>Thank you tokenadult for referencing the LA Times article in post #39.</p>
<p>I don't live in the state and was struck by the description of what schooling is permitted in California. The authorities have</p>
<p>"...allowed home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts".</p>
<p>As someone who lives in Illinois, I know of very few home schoolers (maybe none?) who would meet these requirements. IMO, this fits the description of schooling "offsite", and does not sound like home schooling at all.<br>
I have some questions. When did home schoolers in California allow this to happen? It doesn't sound like those pioneering folks many years ago in California who home schooled on a mountaintop and sent some kids to Harvard.
How is it that Californians seem to have thought that they had it pretty good over the years in their home schooling "rights"?
How prevalent is it that people in California just ignore these official requirements and do what they please?
Perhaps I am overreacting. Is it possible that establishing ones family as a private school is a pro-forma process?
I am sure that there are people out there who can educate me about what happens on the ground. The media in my lifetime has portrayed California as the shape of things to come. From a distance, it sounds like a "Brave New World".</p>
<p>I am not sure how you can see "Brave new World" is all that fragment of a sentance! Many states require actual oversight of all homeschoolers - requiring standardized tests, or portfolios, etc. California does not. People often assume there is some sort of oversight. When they ask me, I cheerfully tell them that for all the state knows, I lock 'em in the closet for 6 hours each day. I may not be the best ambassador for HSing :-)</p>
<p>No one hires credentialed teachers (ok, insert standard disclaimer since I just made a sweeping generalization). Creating your own private school is just filling out a little form once a year. It is the same form that real private schools use. Then you are pretty much on your own. That is basically it. </p>
<p>Joining an ISP can mean a whole lot of things. Public and charter means you have given over control to the state, and need to follow the state standards. Lots of people do it, but if this option did not exist, they probably would not be HSing at all. </p>
<p>I belong to a private ISP. It is really the easiest way to go. Technically, I owe them some paperwork each year: an attendence sheet (dont get me started...), a lesson plan at the beginning of the year, grades at the end. That didnt really match with my casual approach I used when the kids were younger, so I never actually got around to giving them anything. So, I guess I was out of compliance. I did give them a copy of my son's transcript when he was applying for college. </p>
<p>Like HSers is most states, the rules allow anything from unschooling to school at home. We actually like the lack of rules, since there is no oversight, unless you chose a public ISP.</p>
<p>Hi, danas, to answer your historical question, the usual legal practice surrounding homeschooling in California grew up around creative interpretations of California statutes that were written decades ago without homeschooling in mind. No other state has a statutory pattern quite like that. Moreover, quite a few decades ago, before the "modern" homeschooling movement was well established, there was actually an adverse case on homeschooling from the intermediate level California appellate court (the same court that just issued the ruling mentioned a few days ago in this thread). So the trial court ruling that came earlier this year, resulting in this thread, was not completely without precedent in California. (There has not ever been a homeschooling case before California's highest appellate court.) </p>
<p>But homeschooling, as you or I would understand it, has become quite commonplace in California, often relying on parents treating their homeschooling as a "private school" under California statute. So when the adverse trial court decision came out this year, it was soon seen that application of that decision state wide would cause a terrible mess, and that the decision really didn't reflect the facts on the ground in California. I found it VERY significant that some of the top law firms in the world, law firms in which no partner had heard of homeschooling back in the late 1980s, offered pro bono legal services to the various California homeschooling associations to defend the rights of California homeschoolers in the current case. A lot has changed in the social and legal climate for homeschooling in California over the years.</p>
<p>When we lived in CA we homeschooled under the private school option. It really is just a case of filing a short form. That's it.</p>
<p>I do, though, think homeschoolers are better off with specific legislation to protect their rights, rather than a creative use of a statute written for private schools. Most of the homeschoolers I know in CA disagree with that. In fact, I disagreed when I lived there, but now living in a state where homeschooling is specifically recognized (even though we do have some mild regulation -- that many routinely overlook anyway) it feels like a more stable and publicly recognized option. Also, perhaps because of this, there are many more ways for homeschoolers to engage with the school system <strong><em>if they want to</em></strong> such as high schools sports and other extracurriculars. It's better all around.</p>
<p>I can see why this current situation might make people feel that CA needs specific laws, but even when the story first broke, I felt no worries about the future of HSing. I am not sure why anyone worried. There are just too many of us, and it is way too late to put this genie back in the bottle. </p>
<p>Some states have specific laws that are anything but friendly - requiring oversight, portfolios and/or standardized testing and working through organization. Maybe a law can be drafted that would give usmore options, but more likely we would end up with less.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily feel that CA needs specific laws. I just personally prefer it here where we do have specific legal rights. It's true there is some minimal testing required (at grades 3,5, 8, and 10) but the scores kids are expected to achieve are incredibly low. Also, there is no mechanism for reporting the scores, so you're supposed to take the tests and keep the results on file. ;) There isn't anyone to send them to. As you can imagine many people blow them off completely.</p>
<p>But testing has never been a big issue with me. We did it when we had some useful purpose for doing so -- like for my kids to compete in sports and speech&debate with the high school teams, test scores are required for that in a way that is parallel to the expectation that traditionally enrolled kids must maintain certain grades -- but the rest of the time we didn't get around to actually taking tests.</p>
<p>It's a trade-off, I guess, but a better one for us. Many high schools here let homeschoolers take selected classes. For my son, this was an easy solution to meeting a foreign language requirement for college admissions. It cost us nothing, and he had no other obligation to the school. He did a few classes that way. It was a very utilitarian relationship. My daughter enjoyed being part of the high school's very fine symphonic band.</p>
<p>I'm no fan of institutional school, but in the model I often heard referenced in our early days of homeschooling -- that there should be a free, public education system that people could use in parts and pieces, as they desire, in the style of a public library -- that is what it's like here. It couldn't be that way without a specfic legal standing for homeschoolers because of the public funding model.</p>
<p>Obviously, though, the homeschoolers in CA can and should have it whatever way they want it!</p>
<p>sb1492--- "Species" is a word we have made up to represent a degree of biological difference between life forms. Usually, but not always, the defining characteristic of "species" is inability to produce offspring with non members. There are continous, real time examples of "new species" evolution-- that is one population becoming isolated from another population of the same species and gradually changing through natural selection (or sometimes human managed selection) until it's members can no longer mate with members of the original population. It isn't unusual, it isn't mysterious and it isn't something that biologists claim used to happen all the time but doesn't happen now. It does happen now. That you refuse to believe doesn't stop it from happening or being studied/written about continously by the science community. </p>
<p>If a man puts on a blind fold and then announces that he won't believe the sun rises until he can see it, the sun still rises. </p>
<p>And, I promise, that I will try very, very hard to stop argueing about this on this thread.</p>
<p>Thank you folks for the information about California.
I'm still glad I live in Illinois. By virtue of a 1950s court decision, home schools are treated as private schools, which are not regulated educationally.<br>
I would resent testing requirements and visits by the authorities. Approval of a lesson plan would be a deal breaker for me. I've thought of moving to New England. It would be a choice to lie to the authorities, but one I wouldn't be proud of, particularly as an example to my children. I think I'll stay put.
While there is no need to report ones home schooling to the state or local education authorities (and thus there is no way of knowing how many children are home schooled in the Illinois), home schooled children are entitled to participate in the public schools on an "a la carte" basis. I've heard of one family that sends their kids for lunch and recess.
I know of home schoolers who do use public schools in the wealthier suburbs. I live on the Southside of Chicago. Our group is mostly African-American, made up of people who know the Chicago Public Schools all too well.</p>
<p>A group of educational professionals in Massachusetts wanted to found a small middle school. They looked at the ‘private school’ regs in Massachusetts and at the “homeschooling” regulations. The barriors to entry for private schools in Mass was much higher, so they founded the school as a cooperative “homeschool” with each parent filing a single home school form each year. The founders and all parents are on a coop board of directors who hire the staff. Quite different from California.</p>