Because of the recent court decisions in Wisconsin about virtual schools run by the State, some bills are currently before the Senate and Assembly. Hearings were held in Madison this week. Homeschoolers did not attend; public e-schoolers did; that is as it should be. Based on what happened at the hearing, though, it is terribly important that homeschoolers contact their legislators.
Updated information is not yet available on WPA's issues website, but I'm going to keep checking there for updates in case some news might be posted. Information will keep coming out on WPA's email list, and situations will change rapidly. If you care about new restrictions on homeschooling, I strongly urge you to join WPA and get on the email list so that you can be involved in protecting your freedoms. And if you think you're safe and don't care too much about protecting your freedoms, then consider people like me with special-needs kids who need individualized programs that are unique enough that they may not pass muster with the State (and which we shouldn't have to get okay-ed, anyhow).
The basic problem at this point is with Assembly Bill 697. The bill describes what responsibilities in a virtual charter school will be held by a certified teacher, and declares that the person providing educational instruction in the home need not be licensed nor certified. Although this does not apply directly and immediately to homeschoolers, the bill also says that the DPI will promulgate rules regarding "instructional staff." This will govern interactions between parents and students in the home with regard to education. This is too invasive and will eventually come back to hurt homeschoolers.
I realize that this is not enough information to help you know how to respond and whom you should phone in the Assembly. That would be a great deal of information to include in one blog post. Please join WPA and get informed so that you will be able to take a few minutes (or more, if possible) to help protect our good law.
Susan,
ReplyDeleteI'm a WIVA parent, and so biased. Yet, we've also been home school parents, and may be again in the future.
So we're all working to the same end; to allow a diversity of choices in education.
AB 697 is not a threat to home schoolers, it's not a wedge in the door to enable people to attack home schooling directly. It is what it is; a corrective to existing legislation so that virtual schools will continue to exist.
I see this as one of those deals where parents need to stand together in support of what is just and right.
>>diversity of choices in education
ReplyDeleteI think all homeschooling parents believe in the rights of parents to choose an education consistent with their principles. Diverse options in education are vitally important because children are not little robots. What works for one does not work for another.
However, if one person's choice harms another person choice, that violates a basic tenet of natural law: "do not encroach." Public e-schoolers have lots of options. The Senate bill is one option to correct existing legislation. Or public e-schoolers could privately enroll in one of those same e-schools that is currently being provided by the state. Virtual schools will continue to exist whether or not I have to pay for other people's kids tuition (through tax dollars). This bill is not about EXISTENCE of virtual schools, but who is paying for them, and who then has oversight of how that tax money is being spent, and the accountability required of those receiving the tuition-dollars.
I know that there is no intent to harm or threaten homeschoolers with this legislation. But the wording is written in such a way that there could easily be unintended consequences. The bill says that the DPI can come up with regulations regarding instructional staff. This is, of course, not a direct attack on homeschooling. But the results of AB 697 over the course of the next year or so could cause changes that would harm homeschoolers.
>>stand together in support of what is just and right
I think do not think it is just and right for the State to spend $10,000 per child for a service that you could purchase yourself for $1200. I do not think it is just and right for the virtual schools to pocket those astronomical profits for "teaching" a child when it's actually the parent who is doing most of the teaching. What's happening currently with the virtual charter schools is like the govt's $400 hammers and $2500 toilet seats. Hooray for the virtual-school parents who want to be involved in their children's educations!!! But shame on those companies/schools who are bilking the taxpayers.
I'm short on time now, so I will have to visit this later. But ..
ReplyDeleteWhat's happening currently with the virtual charter schools is like the govt's $400 hammers and $2500 toilet seats.
As stories go those are pretty good. However the $2500 toilet seat is not as cut and dry as most think.
Once upon a time the Navy bought a sub-hunting airplane called a P3. They didn't make a whole lot of these, not compared to the commercial run for a 707 and most of the internal fixtures were unique to that particular airplane. One unique features was the size and shape of the bathroom. The Navy ordered airplanes and spare parts, including lav seats.
Now, these were somewhat special bathroom seats in that they were special designs and were designed to be in a combat aircraft. No one wants any part of an airplane breaking if they have to pull a high G turn, especially the lav seat; flying fragments of potty seat are just as dangerous as anything else.
Time went by and the airplane's service life was extended. The Navy ordered more spares from Boeing based on past-use - so many new engines, seat covers, flight controls .. and toilet seats.
Lo and behold the company that Boeing sub-contracted for the seats many years prior had gone out of business and the molds destroyed or lost. So a new company was contracted with, they produced a new run of special one-off seats .. which due to the unique design and short run were, indeed pretty costly.
So .. yes they were expensive but not (say) as expensive as buying a brand new airplane and anyone would have had to pay that much for a one-off toilet seat.
I suspect that this interesting story does NOT mean you are saying there is not massive waste in government spending??? Take for example the trash-can story that came out in Milwaukee County last month.
ReplyDeleteSilly me - my wife's blogger account was signed on when I posted that last comment. That's what I get for letting her use my laptop (grin).
ReplyDeleteThat comments in this thread are mine - I think she has commented on another of your blog posts.
I suspect that this interesting story does NOT mean you are saying there is not massive waste in government spending???
Too many negatives in that sentence - it's difficult to parse.
Of course there is waste - and I've been a little bit of it in the Marines and later at the FDIC.
But the stories - the toilet seat and the hammer, for example - have attained urban legend status and are often mis-understood.