An Associated Press article headlined “Guidelines approved for teaching Bible in public high schools” on 2/6/2010 said that Tennessee's state Board of Education has approved guidelines on how to teach the Bible in public high schools despite concern that the curriculum could be challenged in court.  One might wonder why anyone in his right mind would challenge in court the teaching of the Bible in public high schools, but we all know the vicious anti-Christian (and anti-Jewish) mindset that the radical left has.
     According to the article, legislation was approved in 2008 to authorize a course for a "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible" in public schools.  State officials said they tried to develop principles that are safe from legal challenge, but some say a state-approved Bible course could violate the separation of church and state.  The AP doesn’t say who the “some” are, but it is obviously the vocal minority of atheists, liberals, and their willing allies in the mainstream media.  This “hate the Bible” attitude is especially puzzling in view of the fact that the course will teach students simply about the content of the Bible and its historical context and make it an elective, meaning high schools can choose whether to offer it to students as a social studies credit, and students can decide whether to take it.  I suspect that what the objectors fear is that someone might actually decide to accept what the Bible says and thus turn away from their humanistic world view. 
     One other thought.  While I heartily applaud the effort to get the Bible back into public schools, a “nonreligious academic study,” though a step forward, will not really accomplish a whole lot, especially if it’s watered down to make it sound like the Bible is just another book among “great books."  One of the reasons that we homeschool is that we can provide the evidence that the Bible truly is God’s word as a foundation for all our curriculum.

     I have a few observations.  First, World Net Daily has provided pretty conclusive evidence that CAIR is nothing but an American front organization for a number of radical Muslim terrorist groups.  Second, whatever happened to freedom of speech?  The fact that people are elected officials, like a mayor and a council woman, doesn’t mean that they can’t have opinions and can’t express them openly without fear of government censorship.  Third, how long will it be before any time people disagree with what someone says, the political correctness Nazis will call it hate speech, goose step in, and take that person away?  Finally, if authorities are going to call what Mayor Parris and Council woman Marquez both said “hate speech,” will the government start rounding up all those radical Muslims in our country who spew out hatred toward Christians and the West and removing them from this nation, and make sure that such purveyors of real hate speech are not allowed in?

     Past blogs have contained information about how children from godly families have been challenged in secular colleges.  As I’ve said before, parents who are Christians strive to prepare their children for such challenges, but it’s still true that 18 and even 19 year olds are still immature and rather impressionable, and the statistics aren't good.  So many parents choose “Christian” colleges.  Well, a recent item headlined, “Deifying Darwin” by OneNewsNow reporter Jody Brown  began, “Over the past few years, two separate Christian research groups -- the Barna Group and LifeWay Research -- have reported that upwards of 70 percent of Christian youth leave the church or abandon their faith after high school. ‘Most of them,’ states Barna, ‘pull away from participation and engagement in Christian churches, particularly during the “college years."’  Only one in five, they say, have maintained a level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school experiences.  Sounds to me like a good reason for Christian parents to encourage their children to seriously consider a Christian college, where their faith will be bolstered and encouraged by their peers and professors -- right? Well, one would hope so...”

     Jody then pointed out that his daughter wants to study marine biology -- which early on in her classes will certainly subject her to the presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.  He says that he’s not opposed to her learning about that because it is part of the scientific discussion these days and needs to be addressed, but he is concerned about  how it would be handled by the biology department at the university she ends up attending this fall, so he submitted the following question to the head of the biology department at Carson-Newman College, the Southern Baptist-affiliated institution that sat atop her list of schools being considered:

     Can you tell me how, as part of a Christian college, your department teaches evolutionary theory vs. creation theory?

     Here's a slightly condensed (but otherwise unmodified) version of the response I received. If you're not already sitting down, I suggest you do so.

     "[We] try to cover all major aspects of modern biology. Any topics which the scientific community at large accepts as being factual -- we present as facts; what is accepted as theory -- we present as theory.  [Emphasis mine]

      "...When topics arise that may be controversial, we cover the prevailing scientific view....[We] cover evolution since it represents the prevailing scientific theory that explains a great deal of observational and experimental data....[We] do discuss creation stories and creation science in a biology course, but from the scientific perspective, and in the appropriate course.

      "[What we cover] is in part dictated by what other accredited institutions cover (transfer issues), what's required for standardized tests...and what's required by the teacher education program where certain topics are mandated by the state.

      "[We] do not try to change an individual's beliefs, but rather desire to cover the major topics anyone completing an accredited biology program should be familiar with.

      "We do not teach Creation as a conflicting 'theory' because we don't think it is. Creation addresses the question 'who did it?' (God); evolution addresses the question 'what happened?' Technically, evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of populations over time; it does not deal with origins." [Again, emphasis mine]

     Brown replies, “What? Evolution doesn't deal with origins? And all this time I thought Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species dealt with origins...silly me.  But forget Darwin's 1859 classic. What about something more enduring...say, God's Word? All this time I thought the first chapter of Genesis answered the question ‘what happened?’   Again, silly me.  And to my knowledge, the scientific community at large (read: the world) accepts the theory of evolution as fact (see first emphasis in the response above).  My guess is that a Christian student who aspires to conduct biological research -- or to teach at this Southern Baptist school -- had best not try to argue otherwise.”

    Brown concludes, “My objective here is not to bash Carson-Newman...because I fear, sadly, it's not the only self-described Christian university where the world trumps the Word in the evolution-creation debate. What I would rather that readers -- my Christian brothers and sisters, specifically -- take away is a resolve to challenge this thinking in the realm of Christian education. …The apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis argues that evolution is basically a religious philosophy -- not a science, which involves observation and the ability to repeat those observations. …I would have no problem with a biology department at a Christian university recognizing that fact and teaching evolution from that perspective. But for a self-identified Christian school to endorse a violation of basic scientific principles -- and more importantly, to dilute the Word of God -- is more than I can stomach for my precious daughter.  By the way, she's decided Carson-Newman isn't the school for her. We're looking elsewhere.”

Conner Prairie, the Smithsonian Museum Institution’s only Indiana affiliate, has five themed historic areas on 200 beautiful, wooded acres between Fishers and Noblesville, outside of Indianapolis.  April through October, you can take in the hustle and bustle of the pioneer Indiana prairie, jump in and help with chores in a Victorian farm community, hold newly hatched chicks at the Conner Homestead, throw tomahawks in an Indian trading post, and feel the thrill of soaring 350 feet above Conner Prairie’s landscape in the newest historic area, 1859 Balloon Voyage.  Every visit is a unique adventure that provides an authentic look into the history that shapes us today.  The one room log school house in Prairie Town dates to 1836.  We really enjoyed our visit there.

     Practical Homeschooling:  The Nov./Dec., 2009, issue (#91; www.home-school.com ) has  articles about the magazine by publisher Mary Pride; about the new  “Globally Correct Education” by Tom DeWeese; the National Latin and Mythology exams by Joyce McPherson; about going to middle school during the Great Depression by the always interesting Sam Blumenfeld; along with other interesting information.

     The Home School Court Report:  The Nov./Dec., 2009, issue ( www.hslda.org ) has a tribute to Chris Klicka by HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris; along with a report from the Home School Foundation, updates from across the states, news about Generation Joshua, membership notes, litigation summaries of active cases, medical advice from Dr. Sayre, information about Patrick Henry College, and President Michael Smith’s “The Last Word” also about Chris Klicka.

     Home Educator’s Family Times:  The Nov./Dec., 2009, issue (#94; www.HomeEducator.com/FamilyTimes ) has articles about educational methods by Shirley M. R. Minster, teaching children to be generous by Dr. Bill Maier, useful learning for teens by the always insightful Barb Frank, gaining insight into the meaning of the Constitution by Deborah Stevenson, dealing with doubts by Alison McKee, among other things.

     Home School Enrichment:  The Jan./Feb., 2010, issue ( www.HomeSchoolEnrichment.com )has articles about “Homeschooling for Jesus” by our friend John Thrower; raising a creative child (part 3) by Dr. Marvid G. Baker; homeschooling hero Chris Klicka by Carmen Rockett; homeschooling through marriage struggles by Gail Cherney; a discussion with Ken Ham about raising kids who can take a stand by Jonathan Lewis; handling legal challenges by Christine Field; another famous homeschooler from the past by Katharine Trauger; textbook study skills by Ruth Beechick; how to instill the love of learning by our friend Joanne Calderwood; plus other beneficial items.

     No Greater Joy:  The Jan.,/Feb., 2010, issue ( www.nogreaterjoy.org ) has articles about productive child rearing by Michael Pearl; Martin Luther King by Debi Pearl; building trust by Shalom Pearl Brand; as well as other things.

     The Classical Teacher:  The Winter, 2009, issue ( www.memoriapress.com ) has articles about logic by editor Martin Cothran; the “Great Books” by Anthony O’Hear; and Memoria Press history by publisher Cheryl Lowe;  in addition to a lot of material about Memoria Press’s curricula.

     And while the Christian Book Distributor’s Homeschoool Catalogue is not really a magazine, with the fascinating reviews of various resources by the Andreola family, the winter, 2010, edition ( www.christianbook.com ) is just about like a good homeschooling magazine.  CBD now carries Lamplight Press books too!

     My previous post with the blogs from two English commentators brings up the issue of parental rights.  Many nations in Europe have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which effectively guts any notion of traditional parental rights which has been a cornerstone of Western Civilization.  And the Democrats in the United States want this country to ratify the treaty too!

     There is a man and an organization who are dedicated to defeating this notion and passing a Parental Rights Amendment in the US.  Michael Farris is not only a homeschooling father and co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, but also the Chairman of ParentalRights.org.  Here are some recent comments on the subject that he made on Jan. 19, 2010.

     In Minnesota, “Jaime” was shocked to learn she needed her 11-year-old daughter’s permission to access the daughter’s medical records or contact a physician about the girl’s health. The doctor hides behind a federal law as the justification for his action. “Lisa” in Colorado learned that “to protect the privacy” of a 9-year-old’s library records, government librarians refused to tell her what books her child had checked out (even though Lisa was being asked to pay the over-due book fine) – an experience shared by “Nicole” in Maryland.

     These examples demonstrate the urgent need for the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA). Governments have an ever-increasing view of their power to deal directly with children in exclusion of the parent. 

     In the past year, we’ve seen the PRA introduced in both houses of Congress, securing 129 co-sponsors in the House and 6 in the U.S. Senate. We have built a grassroots network throughout the country that must continue to grow, fueling our support in Washington until the Amendment passes. We have communicated loudly to Ambassador Susan Rice and to the U.S. Senate that we do not want to see the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified. And we have built the behind-the-scenes infrastructure of our organization that has directed this growth and will see us through to ultimate victory.

     All of this has been made possible by the generous support of donors willing to invest in this vital effort to preserve our children and their freedoms by enshrining our freedoms in the text of the Constitution.

     Parents of 5-year-olds shouldn’t have to fight a doctor or dentist, because of federal privacy law, for the right to remain present while their child undergoes an examination or receives care. Yet we have received letters from “Megan” in California and from several others in different states who have faced just such a challenge.

     Many others find educational freedom to be an even greater challenge. “Jenni and Dave” were frustrated when their Alabama school refused to move their son out of a classroom that contained a bully and an abusive teacher, even as their son’s school performance dropped. Sixteen-year-old “Kelly” in California was able to get a secret abortion because her public school released her without parental consent to have the procedure done. Mother “Monica” was shocked to learn about all of this when she accidentally received the bill.

     Even home education is not without problems, as the “Nelson” family in New York learned. They were threatened with charges of educational neglect simply because they opted not to use the public school at all, though they followed the letter of the law to home educate their child from the very beginning.

     If we are to protect these rights and see our success continue in 2010, we know we need to increase our reach. But reaching a wider audience will require more resources than we have had available so far. To meet this need, we are looking for members to support this vital effort.

     Obviously, organizations like this need money to operate.  If you feel that this is a cause that you would like to support, or you just want more information, you can visit their website at www.parentalrights.org/ . 

     Many homeschoolers know of the recent persecution that has been waged against homeschoolers in Germany and how that one family has even sought asylum in the United States.  You may also know that homeschool regulations have been proposed in the United Kingdom which would seem to put that nation on the road to joining Germany in persecuting homeschoolers if enacted.  A couple of UK Telegraph bloggers discussed these situations recently.

       Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture, and on Jan. 29, 2010 asked, :Can I claim asylum in the US?"  He noted, "A German family have been granted asylum in the United States because their children were being forced to learn a curriculum that was 'against Christian values', according to German paper The Local."

    After detailing the situation, he wondered, "The other day I asked if parents who did not toe the New Labour political line could take their children out of 'Citizenship' classes, but I didn’t realise I might be able to flee Europe altogether. 

     "In Britain, meanwhile, the Government is trying to make homeschooling even harder, supposedly because homeschooled children could be abused more, but in reality, I suspect, because many of the parents are religious.

     "Homeschooling may not be everyone’s cup of tea, nor is Evangelical Christianity for that matter, but allowing parents to decide their children’s education is a mark of a free society. And many parents of young children, and not even just religious ones, feel rightfully uncomfortable about schools trying to force the state’s morality on their kids, and not just in the arena of sex."

     West concluded, "Marc Young, editor of the Local, says the Romeikes have made a 'mockery' of US asylum policy, but the decision is entirely in line with American tradition. The Puritans left East Anglia for New England not because they feared death or imprisonment but because under James I, Englishmen were expected to follow a narrow Anglican worldview. Conservatives in western Europe feel the same way today.

     "Now where can I apply for asylum to the US?"

      Then on Feb. 1, 2019, Gerald Warner, an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general blogged that "German homeschoolers' political asylum in America exposes the EU Gulag." 
 
     He began by saying, "The case of the homeschooling couple from Germany who were granted political asylum in the United States, about which Ed West blogged recently, becomes even more interesting if one reads the remarks of the man who granted the Romeikes asylum, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman, of Memphis, Tennessee."

     Here is what Burman said: “We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution. The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.” He observed: “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution… therefore, they are eligible for asylum…”

     Warner noted, "Those last remarks might have been uttered in 1933. Do we truly realise the significance of what has happened? Do we understand that, as citizens of the European Union, we now belong to a totalitarian state from which fleeing citizens are being granted political asylum in the United States? Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, tyranny is back in business in Germany.

     "Judge Burman added that the scariest thing about this case was the motivation of the German government. He said that, rather than being concerned with the welfare of the children, it was trying to stamp out parallel societies. Making his court order, the judge voiced concern that, although Germany was a democratic country and an ally, the policy of persecuting homeschoolers was 'repellent to everything we believe as Americans.'

     I certainly hope and pray that Warner's observation about America is true: "That offers a useful insight into how Americans, living in a free country, view the creeping totalitarianism that has engulfed Europe. [Note:  OBAMA, ARE YOU LISTENING?]  For this is not just a German issue: we are all helots under state control. Why did the German homeschoolers not seek political asylum in Britain? Because our rulers subscribe to the same tyrannical statist philosophy, is the answer. Every possible obstacle is put in the way of homeschooling parents in Britain."

     Warner well stated the obvious truth that all (or I assume all) homeschoolers believe.  "The mentality is that the state – not parents – is the natural controller and shaper of children’s lives and beliefs. When a schoolgirl can be given an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, we know that, while public utilities may have been privatised, children have been nationalised. The Romeikes who fled from Germany objected to their children being forced to follow a curriculum that they believed was anti-Christian. The same would apply in British state schools, where pornographic sex education is increasingly being made compulsory."

     This next observation is really important, both in England and in the US:  "Is that a new idea? Not at all. It was first implemented as government policy in 1919, during the short-lived communist dictatorship of Bela Kun in Hungary, when Georg Lukacs, as deputy commissar for 'culture', enforced his system of Cultural Terrorism, force-feeding children pornographic sex education, teaching them to laugh at their parents and at monogamy and to reject the family and religion. Lukacs was a founder of the Frankfurt School of Marxism, later popularised by Herbert Marcuse, whose demented notions are today called Political Correctness and, as such, have colonised Western governments."

     Warner concluded, "It takes the forthright remarks of an American judge, in a country where the culture war has not yet been lost, to bring home to us in Europe that we already inhabit the Gulag. The Berlin Wall did not 'fall' – it was just moved further west."  We can certainly praise God for clear, level-headed judges like Judge Berman and hope that his kind of thinking prevails in our judicial system.

     Here is a CNSNews article about the same study mentioned in the previous post.

Study Supports Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only Message
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
By Pete Winn, CNSNews Senior Writer/Editor

     The “abstinence-only” message to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases actually works. That is the conclusion of a scientific study that was released Monday by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
 
     The study found that an abstinence-only message was significantly more successful in getting pre-teens to delay the onset of sexual activity than was a “health-promotion control intervention” – or general risk-reduction effort.
 
     “It shows that the kind of abstinence-only intervention that we used was effective in reducing rates of sexual initiation among young African American adolescents, compared with a health-promotion control group,” lead author John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the UPenn School of Medicine, told CNSNews.com.
 
     Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial in which a total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7 took part in Saturday “interventions” – activities and programs held in classrooms at four public schools participating in the study.
 
     The students were randomly assigned to an eight-hour abstinence-only “intervention” promoting the abstinence message; an eight-hour “safer sex-only” intervention; an eight- or 12-hour combined abstinence and safer-sex intervention, or an eight-hour health-promotion control group.
 
     There was a 33 percent reduction in self-reported sexual intercourse from the abstinence-only group, compared to the control group, by the end of the study. Of the students who reported that they were sexually active during the study, there were fewer reports of recent sexual activity from the abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6 percent) compared to the control participants (29.0 percent).
 
     Participants in the abstinence-only intervention had reduced reports of multiple sexual partners compared with the control group (8.8 percent vs. 14.1 percent).
 
     After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group.
 
     While abstinence-only intervention did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention had reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention.
 
     Leslee Unruh of the Abstinence Clearinghouse sees the study as vindication of the abstinence-only message -- one which has been under fire since the Clinton administration, when Congress passed a law providing funding for abstinence education.
 
     “It’s what we’ve known all along,” Unruh told CNSnews.com. “We have been tracking the numbers all along, and until this particular study came out, we have really been ignored.
 
     “We feel that this study is one of the best ones that have been done because it is one of the first evaluations and design that have employed a ‘full random assignment -- a design that would be fair to abstinence-until-marriage education programs,” Unruh said.
 
     “It cannot be dismissed like other evaluations that have been done,” she added.
 
     Researchers ask: is a successful abstinence-only program ‘even possible?’
 
     Jemmott told CNSNews.com that the researchers didn’t undertake the study to vindicate abstinence-only education, but to find out if it was even possible for an abstinence-until-marriage program to be successful.
 
     “Objectively speaking, there (are) basically two strategies that you could use to reduce the risk of exposure to sexually transmitted disease and risk of pregnancy – one is to reduce the frequency of sex, and the other is to increase the frequency of condom use or contraception,” Jemmott said.
 
     “But it just turns out that most of the recent evidence has used an approach that emphasized condom use and included abstinence -- or in general, used both of those strategies combined. There have been many, many studies showing that this comprehensive approach is efficacious, but very little evidence on the side of abstinence-only,” Jemmott said.
 
     “We started thinking – ‘Is it even possible to develop an abstinence-only intervention that could be effective?’ And we thought, ‘To do that, what you would have to do is take into effect the research that’s been done on comprehensive interventions – why did those interventions work and what are the qualities of successful interventions?’ And then apply those qualities in the development of an abstinence-only intervention. That’s what we tried to do,” Jemmott added.
 
     What features worked? Jemmott said researchers found out what motivated pre-teens – and engaged them.
 
     During the eight-hour abstinence-only session, “facilitators” used interactive small group activities to build the pre-teens’ knowledge of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, bolster beliefs supporting practicing abstinence, and improve skills and confidence to help negotiate abstinence and resist pressure to have sex.
 
      “You don’t lecture – you use activities that engage the adolescents – games, brainstorming, using videos, interactive activities,” Jemmott said. “You make it fun.”
 
      Nearly a year ago, the Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in federal funding for abstinence programs and launched a new $114 million “comprehensive” pregnancy prevention initiative. Obama pledged that the U.S. would only fund programs that have been demonstrated scientifically to be effective.
 
     The president’s proposed budget, introduced Monday, would expand that program to $183 million next year.
 
     Jemmott, meanwhile, said that his research doesn’t presume to speak for all abstinence-only approaches -- more research needs to be done before policy-makers weigh in on abstinence-only education.
 
     “I think that a lot has been said against abstinence-only interventions categorically,” Jemmott told CNSNews.com. “I think this study says, ‘Wait a minute! It is possible for an abstinence-only intervention to be efficacious. And the study calls for more research.
 
     “This is one study. What we really need is a larger body of evidence – several studies, rigorous studies -- evaluating whether an abstinence-only intervention can be efficacious. Once you have that body of evidence, then you can make strong public policy decisions,” Jemmott added.
 
     The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. It appears in the Feb.1 edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

     Recently supposed researchers using questionable research made some big headlines, because the main stream media happens to agree with what they said, by claiming that abstinence only education doesn’t work.   Previous blogs of mine detailed how a Centers for Disease Control team claimed to evaluate studies of sex education programs and came up with a conclusion supporting the so-called "comprehensive" programs that teach children to use condoms, and how that Irene Ericksen and Danielle Ruedt, two members of the CDC panel that examined the studies, raised alarms claiming that the data actually conflicts with the agency's stated conclusion that comprehensive programs such as those emphasizing "safe sex" over abstinence are working.

     The overall study, called "Group-based Interventions to Prevent Adolescent Pregnancy, HIV, and Other STDs," stated the effectiveness of programs that include condom instruction.

     It was based on the compilation of 83 studies done from 1980 through 2007 and was released just in time to be considered for President Obama's request to cut money from abstinence education programs and give it to comprehensive programs that teach kids to use condoms.

     But according to Ericksen, a research analyst with the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City, the statistics inside the study showed no difference between abstinence education and so-called "comprehensive sex education" on key factors including teen condom use, sexual activity, pregnancy and STDs.

     According to the South-Dakota-based Abstinence Clearinghouse, the statistics actually revealed that abstinence programs produced a significant reduction in teen sexual activity, as documented by 10 studies from six authors.

     "But the researchers discounted these results because several randomized AE studies showed lesser effects, even though these studies had important design problems that called into question their impact," the organization reported.

     "According to this minority report, the study recommendations may mislead policymakers by presenting conclusions that don't match key study findings," confirmed Paul Birch, chief of the Institute for Research and Evaluation. "The report is important because it allows differing views on this research to be presented at a time when Congress is re-examining sex education policy."

     Well, now in an item headlined 'Mom and dad really do know best': Abstinence-only education: 'Science finally has caught up with logic' on February 2, 2010, WorldNetDaily reported that a new study published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine that confirms the effectiveness of abstinence means "science has finally caught up with logic and what parents have known for centuries," according to the chief of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association.

     "It turns out that when it comes to educating their children on matters of sex, mom and dad really do know best," said Dr. David Stevens, the CEO of the organization.

     His comments followed the report on the study that was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 662 children in Philadelphia. According to reports, the students were split among four options: eight hour-long abstinence-only classes; safe-sex classes, classes with both approaches or classes with general healthy teaching.

     Two years later, one-third of abstinence-only students reported having sex since the classes ended. The control group report was at 49 percent. The other two groups were the same as the control group.

     According to the study, the classes simply presented the drawbacks to sexual activity for children – not getting into the issue of saving sex for marriage.

     It immediately was attacked by Monica Rodriguez, whose Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States advocates "comprehensive" sex education. She told Fox News the study doesn't mean another abstinence-only program would work.

     "It's unfair to compare this abstinence-only intervention to the typical abstinence-only-until-marriage program that young people in this country have been put through," she told the network.

     The lead author is psychologist John Jemmott III, and Stevens noted that was attention-getting.

     Jemmott said, "I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence.'

     "What we should learn from this experience is that while science itself is objective, scientists themselves can be biased and can mislead the public and policy makers," Stevens said.

     He said it's just logical that "equipping teens to abstain from sexual activity is an effective way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

     The National Abstinence Education Association has noted, "A survey from Zogby International showing that when parents become aware of what abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education actually teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40 percent to 60 percent, while support for comprehensive programs drops from 50 percent to 30 percent. And 59 percent of parents said more funding should go to abstinence education; 22 percent said more should go to comprehensive sex education."

     "Many groups and individuals up until yesterday had relentlessly railed against abstinence programs as totally ineffective, even counterproductive," Stevens said. "They had used their own studies to convince many legislators, including President Obama, to eliminate federal funding for abstinence programs altogether, in the process depriving teens and their parents from a potent resource that can mean a lifesaving difference.

     I admit that I am a global warming skeptic.  Reading over the "evidence" presented to support the idea of global warming through the year, I have never seen anything which has convinced me that the claims being made are true, and now we are learning that the vast majority of that "evidence" has been fabricated and finagled to achieve a predetermined goal, so the global warming advocates have even less credibility in my view than before.

     On Wednesday, February 3, 2010, the always interesting and eminently cogent Walter E. Williams  wrote an article entitled "Global Warming Update" which began, "John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled 'Global Warming: The Other Side,' presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration."

     According to Williams, the Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.

     Williams continuned by pointing out that mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."

     He gave several examples of how this global warming hysteria has influenced our society, one of which is that schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

   In his conclusion, Williams states, "What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming."

Why Is NOW So Afraid of a Pro-Life, Pro-Family Ad?

By Marjorie Dannenfelser

     What is the National Organization for Women afraid of? Apparently a touching story about a courageous woman who chooses life in the face of adversity is just too much to take. And when her football star son decides to share that story on Super Bowl Sunday, well, that goes too far. It’s “divisive.”

     NOW and its affiliate organizations the Feminist Majority and Women’s Media Center are condemning the Super Bowl advertisement featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam, calling it an offensive “anti-choice” ad.

     Could you imagine anything more ironic? The organization that purports to embrace women and “choice” is desperately clamoring to shut down the most loving choice of all: the choice for life. Yet the women of NOW can’t abide 30 seconds of a heart-warming story. What would producers at Lifetime Television say?

     Let’s be real. What’s the worst case scenario here? That if Americans hear this message they will choose to make sacrifices in order to have a child and bring a wonderful life in to the world? That’s hardly an abhorrent message.

     These groups are not “for” women and they don’t want them to have a “choice.” They only want women to “choose” the path of abortion. Never mind that abortion has been shown over and over to be destructive in numerous ways, both physically and psychologically. But, *please* don’t tell people that there are alternatives.

     In their efforts to cling to the old feminist mantra that we somehow “need” abortion, NOW sells American women short. They assume that women are so weak-brained and easily manipulated that they must be protected from a life-affirming message. 

     This fracas over the Super Bowl illustrates perfectly how NOW & Co. are losing their grip as their pro-abortion position sinks in public opinion. For the first time in decades, Gallup recently reported that a majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life. The demand by pro-life Americans, and the members of Congress who represent them, insisting that the health care reform package must not include federal funding of abortions has damaged the prospects of getting the health care reform plan through Congress. The March for Life in Washington last Friday was one of the biggest ever attended with tens of thousands of seniors, young people and Americans of every race and creed taking a stand in defense of life. 

     It is this growing American pro-life majority that has driven NOW to desperation. In an effort to remain relevant, they apparently have become experts at sports. In their words, the purpose of the Super Bowl is to “bring people together.” I’m not sure if you asked Sedrick Ellis of the Saints or Gary Brackett of the Colts if that was their mission that they’d agree. Two teams fighting to the last second to be named Super Bowl champion is a divisive event within itself. If you have any doubts, just ask the fans. 

     What is divisive are NOW’s attempts to demonize the Tebow family, CBS, and ad sponsor Focus on the Family. In a desperate attempt to keep full information from women, they are attacking the family of an American sports hero with the courage to live out his convictions.

     As a mother of five, I can only say I’d much rather have my children watch the Tebow story than the hundreds of other things they might see during the Super Bowl. Somehow I think the majority of American sports fans, women and men alike, will be able to appreciate the blessings of life expressed by the Tebow family. If this beautiful story of family unity, sacrifice and triumph is too harsh on the eyes and ears for so-called women’s groups, I have two words of advice: mute button.

     --- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/29/marjorie-dannenfelser-super-bowl-tim-tebow-abortion/  ; Marjorie Dannenfelser is President of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of over pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.

    The following news item on Feb. 2, 2010, caught my attention.  I hate to be judgmental; yes, he apologized, but I really think Emanuel is only sorry that he got caught, not really for what he said.

     Dating back to the time he worked in the Clinton administration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has developed an almost notorious reputation in Washington for being a brash personality with a penchant for profanity-laced diatribes. Conversely, his intense nature, in addition to his sharp mind, are what many attribute to his success and effectiveness as a Washington power player. But a remark he made recently in a closed-door meeting attended by White House aides and leaders of liberal special-interest groups has irked many, prompting him to issue an apology.

     Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Emanuel, exasperated upon learning that liberal special-interest groups were planning to run ads against conservative Democrats not supportive of health care reform, blasted the plan as "f------ retarded" over the summer. Naturally, some outrage ensued after Emanuel's words came to light, with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin taking to her Facebook page to call on President Obama to fire him for what she saw as the equivalent of a racial slur.

     Palin, whose son Trig is afflicted with Down syndrome, said she was informed of Emanuel's comment by a fellow parent of a special-needs child and pleaded with the president to "show decency" to the political process by "eliminating" the Chicago native from his inner circle.

     In a post titled "Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?," Palin wrote, "Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the 'N-word' or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable," adding, "it's heartbreaking."

     A Politico story today reports that an administration official informed them that Emanuel had already reached out to Special Olympics chairman and CEO Tim Shriver, who recently launched a campaign to end the use of "the R word."

     "Rahm called Tim Shriver Wednesday to apologize and the apology was accepted," the unnamed official said.  [An apology to the CEO of the Special Olympics just presto-chango dismisses the absolute wrong-headedness of this whole mess?  Many years ago Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz told a joke with a racial slur and was forced to resign.  But elitist Rahm Emanuel?  Never.  And Obama doesn’t have the decency to do anything about it.]

    The following announcement was made by HSLDA on December 14, 2009:  HSLDA Senior Counsel Scott Woodruff recently wrote this letter to the editor of the Centralia Sentinel: “Dear Centralia Sentinel Editor, Your recent article, ‘Fewer students registered as taught at home,’ said that local school superintendent Keri Garrett ‘would like to see more monitoring of homeschooled students.’  Presumably Garrett envisions that homeschooled students would be monitored by public school teachers. According to large-scale scientific studies, students being monitored by public school teachers (i.e., public school students) score at the 50th percentile, on average, on standardized tests. But homeschooled students score at the 83rd percentile. The remarkable scores of homeschooled students would need to come down 33 percentile points to equal the scores of students already being monitored by public school teachers.  There is no justification for having public school teachers monitor homeschooled students.”  Our thanks go to HSLDA member Jason Branch who brought our attention to the Centralia Sentinel article.

     Here is the article so you can read it yourself (with a few of my comments interspersed): 

FEWER STUDENTS REGISTERED AS TAUGHT AT HOME

by Lauren Duncan, Centralia, IL, Sentinel News Staff

     While many students are familiar with the school setting of attending class at a public facility with several other children the same age, students who are homeschooled may have a different outlook on their daily classroom experience.

     According to Hamilton-Jefferson Counties Regional Superintendent of Schools Bryan Cross, three students were registered this year as homeschooled, down from 15 during the 2008-2009 school year and 26 in the 2007- 2008 school year.

     Cross said there is no law requiring that students be registered with ROE, and therefore there may be a greater number of area students who are receiving an education at home. [Editor's note:  This lack of any law requiring registration may well explain the fact that while homeschooling is growing exponentially, local registrations are down.  Why register?  The law says that families who homeschool "MAY" register, but there is no requirement to do so and, truthfully, no good reason to do so.  In fact, HSLDA, Illinois Christian Home Educators, and almost all homeschool leaders in the state recommend that homeschoolers NOT register with the state or their local school districts so that they might avoid attempts to suck them into the system.  WSW.]

     He said, "We can assume there are additional students who are being home schooled."

     Marion, Clinton, and Washington County Regional Superintendent of Schools Keri Garrett said she does not believe the number of students registered in the region is accurate.

     She said, "We ask that they fill out a registration form, because people do call and ask about children they see out during the day, and the state board is asking for more information."  [Editor's note:  In other words, they want to play "Big Brother" for homeschooled students too.  WSW.]

     Garrett added that the office offers information for those interested in homeschooling or those who want to know the requirements.

     She said students are supposed to be taught in language arts, biological and physical science, math, history, and social sciences, fine arts, health and physical development.

     According to the Home School Legal Defense Association Web site, Illinois statutes state that homeschoolers may voluntarily file a "statement of assurance with the local school district or the Illinois Department of Education "simply to indicate that their private school meets the standards required."

     Kimberly Hails of Texico, who homeschooled two children through high school, explained those requirements

homeschooled students are expected to meet; "Kids don't have to go to school until they're 7. That allows parents a lot of flexibility; sometimes their kids just aren't ready. Basically, you are supposed to teach all areas of curriculum a public school teaches students at the same age and grade level the homeschooled student is."

     Illinois statutes state homeschools that meet these two requirements are considered legal private schools.

     Hails added that homeschool educators are also not required to produce anything proving they are educating their students, and students being schooled at home do not take the Illinois Standards Achievement Test.

     However, Hails chose to have her children take the Terra Nova tests, which are taken in public schools and work to provide basic reports to parents of a student's achievement. In addition, her children took part in a homeschool group, where families who chose to teach their children at home would gather one day a week and have class.

     As far as teacher qualifications are concerned, Hails said that parents are not required to be certified or have any qualifications.

     She noted how she found homeschooling to be beneficial: "For one thing, the learning style is important.  Each child is able to have a curriculum that fits their learning style, and there's not the worry of meeting the standards of a test. It also saves a lot of time for life skills training and hands-on activities."

     According to Hails, a student must take a course and pass a test involving the U.S. and Illinois Constitution to receive a high school diploma.  She said she has found homeschooling her children in high school allowed them time to explore their interests and work toward a college degree.

     "I do think its stressful, but it's worth it ... to know what you kids are learning," she said.

     Garrett, not speaking in regards to Hails, noted that she would like to see more monitoring of homeschooled students.

     She said, "I would like to see a discussion on it with people who are interested. I think homeschooling has its place, but then there is also no schooling. I know for a fact that in some cases this is abused. There are some people who come in and can't fill out the form to register as homeschooling their children.  [Editor's note:  I am just amazed at this statement; so amazed, in fact, that I simply cannot believe that it is true, unless the form for "registering as homeschooling," as is often the case with governmental bureaucracies, is as complicated as the United States Tax Code and its forms.  WSW.]  I was pretty amazed when I found out Illinois is more lax on its requirements than many other states."

     [Editor's note:  The common argument is that "State X" has more homeschooling regulations that "our state," so we should call for "more monitoring of homeschool students" here.  This totally ignores several facts.  First, studies show that homeschooled students in more regulated states actually do not do as well on standardized tests than those in less regulated states, leading to the hypothesis that perhaps all the time spent in filling out needless paperwork to meet these ridiculous regulations takes away from the time and effort that parents need to educate their children!  Second, as Scott Woodruff in his response points out, all the regulations governing public schools do not eliminate the fact that many, many students in public schools are failing and that many public schools themselves are failing and have to be put under state control.  Third, even public school monitoring has not stopped the recent rash of child abuse in the classroom where male teachers are seducing female students and female teachers are seducing male students and so forth.  The call for more regulation or more monitoring of homeschooled students serves absolutely NO rational goal except to keep the power of education in the hands of the educational bureaucrats rather than in the hands of parents where it belongs.  WSW.]

      Someone posted the following question on the ILHomeschoolFreedomWatch e-mail list with the subject line, “Centralia newspaper-- anti homeschool?”  on February 1, 2010.  “Anyone know anything about this? According to HSLDA, the paper refused to publish a rebuttal letter when one "official" asked for more monitoring of homeschoolers.  http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/il/200912140.asp   

     Here is the item from HSLDA:

     Centralia Sentinel Refuses to Print HSLDA Rebuttal

     The Centralia Sentinel recently published an article attributing to public school superintendent Keri Garrett the statement that she “would like to see more monitoring of homeschooled students.” Alert HSLDA member Jason Branch brought this article to our attention.

     HSLDA Senior Counsel Scott Woodruff responded and faxed the following letter to Sentinel editor LuAnn Droege:

     “Dear LuAnn,

     Your recent article, ‘Fewer students registered as taught at home,’ said that school superintendent Keri Garrett ‘would like to see more monitoring of homeschooled students.’

     Presumably Garrett envisions that homeschooled students would be monitored by public school teachers. According to large-scale scientific studies, students being monitored by public school teachers (i.e., public school students) score at the 50th percentile, on average, on standardized tests. But homeschooled students score at the 83rd percentile. The remarkable scores of homeschooled students would need to come down 33 percentile points to equal the scores of students already being monitored by public school teachers.

     There is no justification for having public school teachers monitor homeschooled students.”

     The Sentinel subsequently refused to print Woodruff’s letter.

     I responded:

     We live in Marion County, where Centralia is located and where the Centralia Sentinel is the only daily newspaper.  We do not subscribe to it, but I did see the original notice about the article in an alert from HSLDA which Scott Woodruff had written a rebuttal and sent it to the paper.  The Sentinel does not put its articles online, but I obtained a photocopy of the article from HSLDA, and Supt. Garrett did indeed say that she felt that homeschoolers in IL need more monitoring.  This is the same Supt. Garrett that has pushed for municipalities and even whole counties to adopt a day time curfew, which a few villages in the ROE have adopted but seems to be dead here in Salem, the county seat.  In her suggested wording of the ordinance that she wants adopted, it specifically says that "(d) Whenever a Police Officer is provided with the information that the minor is enrolled in a private school (home schooled) the officer will check with the parents/guardian and verify this information. This information will be forwarded to the Regional Office of Education #13 in Salem.”   This amounts to de facto registration and was one of the main reasons that the ordinance was finally rejected even by the chief of police here in Salem (who had initially supported it).  I have no idea why the Sentinel refused to print the rebuttal; perhaps they might argue that it was not written by a local person.

     Eagle Forum's Education Reporter, Jan., 2010, contained the following “Letter to the Editor” written by a Florida parent to a Florida newspaper.

     To the Editor:

     My 14-year-old daughter Pearl is a freshman at Ft. Myers High School and my 11-year-old daughter Lily is in 5th grade at Three Oaks Elementary. Here are some of the things they have relayed to me concerning what they have been learning in our public schools:

     Lily said, "I would rather just shoot myself in the head because it would be a less painful death than to suffer and die from global warming."

     Pearl has been studying the Watergate scandal for three weeks. She has had to memorize the name of everyone involved (people I've never heard of) for a test.

     Both girls have been taught to fear the extinction of polar bears.

     Both girls have had numerous lessons about various aspects of the Native Americans and the brutal treatment thereof.

     Both girls have studied the Pueblo people, and Mexican pottery.

     Neither girl has spent much time studying our American forefathers.

Dr. Jean-Marc Bovee

Ft. Myers, Florida

     Right before Christmas, a Texas Home School Legal Defense Association member withdrew her son from public school to begin homeschooling him. She sent a letter to the school informing the administration of her decision to homeschool according to Texas law. However, shortly after sending the withdrawal letter, she received a request from the school to appear in person, sign withdrawal paperwork and submit a copy of her driver’s license.

     Because this procedure is not required by law, she did not complete it. Nevertheless, the school insisted and mailed her forms to fill out regarding her homeschool program. Again, she declined to submit anything not required by law. Shortly thereafter, she received a summons to appear in court for truancy and discovered that the public school had not withdrawn her son but had been marking him absent!

     HSLDA’s Texas attorney, Tom Sanders, immediately responded to the summons by sending a letter to the truancy court. He informed the court that the family was part of HSLDA and that the student was not truant, but homeschooled. Sanders’ letter indicated that he would be representing the family and preparing for a jury trial.

     When Sanders spoke with court representatives, he was told that his letter was not sufficient and that the family would still be required to appear in court on the appointed date. However, as Sanders was drafting another letter, the court dismissed the case.

     A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.

     Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.

     Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, say they were forced to go the the US because they wanted to educate their five children at home, something that is illegal in Germany.

     Judge Lawrence Burman issued the ruling on Tuesday in Memphis, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.

     The family left Germany after several run-ins with authorities. The parents had ignored repeated orders to send their children to school. German state constitutions require parents to send their children to public or private schools and they can face fines or even imprisonment if they don't comply.

     In October 2006, police came to the Romeike home and took the children to school. In November 2007 Germany's highest appellate court ruled that in severe cases of non-compliance, social services could even remove children from home.

     Uwe Romeike told the Associated Press that the 2007 ruling convinced him and his wife that "we had to leave the country." The curriculum in public schools over the past few decades has been "more and more against Christian values," he said.

'The Freedom to Choose'

     Lutz Görgens, a German Consul General in Atlanta, Georgia, said in an e-mail statement that German parents had a range of educational options for their children. Mandatory school attendance in Germany ensures a high standard of learning for all children, he said.

     "Parents may chose between public, private and religious schools, including those with alternative curricula like Waldorf or Montessori schools," said Görgens.

     But Romeike was not comfortable sending his children to public school anymore. He said three eldest children had had problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. "I think it's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught," he said.

     The couple took the kids out of school in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg in 2006 and were fined around €70,000 ($100,000).

     In 2008 Romeike, a music teacher, sold his collection of pianos and rented out his home in the village of Bissingen. The family now live in Morristown, Tennessee, in the so-called Bible Belt. Like many of their neighbors they teach their children at home.

     The decision on the family's political asylum could still be overturned if the US government appeals the ruling. But Mike Donnelly, the attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he hopes Tuesday's ruling will influence public opinion in Germany -- which is part of the reason his group offered to represent the Romeikes, he said.

   (Note:  I have several items that I have been saving up, but lest they get too out of date and I get too far behind, I’d better post them now.  WSW.]

     The Associated Press reported that the European Union says it has "full confidence" in a key United Nations climate change study after its authors apologized for mistakes.  The EU has developed an ambitious and costly plan to turn into a low-carbon economy on dire warnings of global warming from a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of scientists affiliated with the United Nations.  The Nobel-prize winning climate scientists have apologized for glaring errors that wrongly predicted that glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates.  EU spokeswoman Barbara Helferrich said 27-nation bloc has "full confidence in the findings of the report" and the IPCC's moves to correct mistakes.  With all the bad press that the global warming crowd has been receiving lately, this news item needs to be translated.  What it really means is, “We don’t care how they cooked the books, how they made up data out of thin air, and how they tried to pull the wool over our eyes, we’re going accept what they have to say anyway, primarily because it’s politically correct.”

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW THAT COULD CHANGE YOUR CHILD’S EDUCATION

By Tere Scott, St. Louis Homeschooling Examiner (January 24, 2010)

     [Editor’s note:  We lived and homeschooled in Affton, MO, near St. Louis, for some six years, from 2002 to 2008.  We still live within 100 miles of St. Louis and are active on the board of the Greater St. Louis Area Home Educator’s Expo.  The anti-homeschooling forces are active in every state.  What they try in one, they try in others too.  Recent issues of this newsletter have had information about a legislative fight in New Hampshire, calls to regulate homeschooling in Michigan because of cases of abuse by alleged homeschoolers, and calls to regulate homeschooling in Indiana because of a couple of moms who claimed to be homeschooling were convicted of educational neglect.  Here is what is happening in Missouri, which is a relatively good state in which to homeschool—so far!  WSW.]

     Last year, St. Louis area homeschoolers were called to action to stop a proposed bill that would have affected homescholers. S.B. 291 had been suddenly changed to add a credit and graduation provision and would have changed the compulsory age requirements of high school students adding government control to graduation requirements of a homeschooler. Several thousand Missouri homeschoolers rallied outside a Jefferson City Capitol Building surprising legislators at the size of their turnout and the depth of their concerns. Brad Haines of Families for Home Education (FHE) led the fight along with Home School Legal Defense attorneys. They stepped in and changed the wording satisfying many, but leaving others feeling as though the wording was not specific enough to explain what is meant by a credit hour.

     This year on January 6, 2010, legislators in Missouri went back to work.  On Missouri State Representative Sara Lampe's agenda was to present a bill that would change the requirement age of Missouri children to attend school at the age of 6 rather than the current age of 7 and to extend Kindergarten across the state of Missouri to be a full-day.  But, when she presented the reading of the bill - not once but twice on two separate days - she read a the Bill that contained the language of the compulsory education statute bill prior to the changes made after the capitol rally last year. Specifically, her current bill does not include language about the credit requirements, the definition of a credit and the other protections afforded by last year's legislation. Whether this was simply an oversight on her part or a hidden agenda is unknown. But, the reading of HB1297 presented by Sara Lampe was incorrect.

     Representative Lampe is not the only legislator who has an interest in changing the laws affecting homeschoolers.  Senator Robin Wright-Jones has introduced a bill calling for homeschoolers to register with the "chief school officer of the child's school district of residence." There are other bills that have been introduced which would directly impact homeschoolers and should also be watched for potential instrusive amendments. They are SB 788 and HB 1504 as summarized below.

     Homeschoolers as well as any parent of a child in a public, private or charter school in Missouri; need to be aware of the proposed changes to the Laws that effect how our children are educated. Once you are aware of the proposed changes, you can decide if you want to contact Sara Lampe's office to make her aware that you noticed the discrepency in the bill she is presenting; or contact your legislators, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) or Families for Home Education (FHE) to make your voice heard.

     Lembke's bill SB788 is scheduled for a second read on Monday, January 25, 2010.  You can follow the formal calendar here.

     HB 1297 - This bill would lower the age when a child must start attending school from 7 to 6 years of age and would require, beginning in the 2010 school year, all schools have a full-day kindergarten program.

     HB 1504 - This bill expands eligibility for the Missouri Returning Heroes' Education Act scholarship and specifies that homeschooled students must receive the same financial aid consideration as non-homeschooled students.  Registration would be required for a homeschooler, prior to graduation, in order to be eligible.

     SB 688 - This act would require the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child enrolled in a home school to notify the chief school officer of the child's school district of residence that the child is enrolled in a home school.

     SB 788 -  This act establishes the "Students First Interscholastic Athletics Act."  It would allow every high school-age student the opportunity to participate in interscholastic athletics.  This would include students enrolled in public, private, the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program, or a home school regardless of their background and education program.  A high school-age student would have the right to seek participation in interscholastic athletics through his or her school. If the school does not offer athletics (as a homeschool most likely would not), the student would be allowed to participate through his or her school district of residence if the student has registered to participate prior.

HOMESCHOOL FAMILIES ONCE AGAIN CAUGHT IN A CROSSFIRE

By Kerry Messer

     [Editor’s note:  Here is more information about what was discussed in the previous article.  Our friend Kerry Messer is a minister, a homeschooling father whose own children are now graduated, the founder and president of Missouri Family Network (MFN) which lobbies for traditional family values in the Missouri legislature, and also the registered lobbyist with Families for Home Education (FHE) of Missouri which is the Missouri statewide homeschooling organization.  WSW.]

     Last year (2009) the Missouri General Assembly advanced legislation focused on education policy which inadvertently threatened home education.  Those unintended  consequences were averted in the end and the final results actually came out to the advantage of home schooling families.  However, the impending threat was no less a danger nor was it to be ignored just because it was unintended. 

     While acknowledging the smiles of God to protect home educators, it is also notable that literally thousands of families responded to last year’s threat.  Because of those who responded with calls and letters, emails and visits, legislation was altered to appease the home school community.  It is shuttering to think what today may look like had the home school community ignored the seriousness of the situation.

     To review the political battle and its favorable outcome, visit www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net. 

     We are now greeted with the 2010 Missouri General Assembly quickly beginning to focus on further education policy.  Early in the annual session of the Legislature the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education has already voted to advance an omnibus education bill.  This means the basic focus of the bill is open ended education policy.  It is deliberately designed to be broad based with no finite focus, allowing almost anything related to the field of education to be attached to the bill. 

     Last year’s bill grew from one page to hundreds, from changing one section of law to 142 areas of law!  This year’s bill, House Bill 1543, started out by rewriting sixteen provisions of law and has already been greatly expanded in its first committee.  Additionally, while most bills have barely been introduced and most not even assigned to a committee for initial review, HB 1543 has already been voted “do pass” by this 14 member committee.    

     Thankfully, two of the amendments offered in committee were turned back because of their negative impact on home schoolers.  But this was only the first salvo engaged by Representative Sara Lampe (Democrat from Springfield).  Rep. Lampe made it very clear that she plans to pursue her agenda with amendments to be offered when the bill comes before the full House of Representatives in the very near future.

     Rep Lampe seems to hold to the worldview that parents who do not have their children educated according to her preconceived idea are guilty of abuse.  Furthermore she laments that not all young children are enrolled in a full time kindergarten prior to first grade.  Citing that over 220 children in St. Louis skip going to kindergarten (out of around 35,000 students, or 1 out of every 2,500) she wants to lower compulsory education which starts at 7 years of age down to 5.   Then she believes that all schools should be required to maintain full day kindergarten with a minimal compulsory age of 6 statewide.

     Pushing her worldview upon all of Missouri, Rep Lampe tried to get the House Education Committee to accept her ideology in the form of amendments to HB 1543.  

     Both amendments were turned back after the chairman of the committee (Maynard Wallace, Republican from Ozark County) invited home school lobbyist (me) Kerry Messer of Missouri Family Network to address the committee during its executive session.

     As Rep. Lampe attempted to engage in an impromptu negotiation over limited hours of instruction for home schooling 5-6 year olds, I explained that her ideas would spark a major political firestorm akin to last year’s emergency rally which drew 2,500-3,000 people to the capitol.  Among other things I challenged the committee to think about how the proposed amendments transform policy related to the State’s constitutional requirement to provide a free education to criminalizing parents who chose not to use those free services.

     As she prepares to offer amendments to HB 1543, or other bills, on the floor of the House, Rep. Lampe has invited me to work with her to find a compromise.  I committed to her and the rest of the Education Committee that I would try to come up with ideas that could satisfy her concerns, but that I could not jeopardize the families which make up Missouri’s home schooling community by restricting their God given right to educate their children according to personal convictions.

     After all was said and done and the committee adjourned I found myself confronted with a frustrated lobbyist for the AFL-CIO labor union.  This lobbyist explained that the amendments I had opposed were ‘her’ amendments and that Rep. Lampe was only working to help “the teachers.”  This brief conversation clearly answered my internal question as to the motivation behind the amendments.  Were they proposed out of a deep residing concern for the quality of education or was the concern more related to paychecks?

     Action needed:  If only the government and its bureaucrats could leave parents alone to raise their families and educate their children in a truly free civic society, we would not have to face the gauntlet of these crossfires.  But until that day dawns, let us defend ourselves and one another with vigor and resolve.  Prepare to join us for the home school rally at the Missouri State Capitol on March 2, 2010.  Plan now to come to the capitol when HB 1543 is to be debated on the floor of the House.  Sit down right now and write your letter/email to your Representative asking them to oppose any amendments lowering compulsory attendance ages. 

     Note: I try to pass along interesting information that I think will be of use to homeschoolers or those thinking about homeschooling.  Here is something that recently appeared on a homeschooling e-mail list to which I subscribe.

     Question:  I homeschooled last year and put my daughters in public school by my mother's house (we stay there during the week). I am not sure I made the right decision. Do you think it would be tramatic if I pulled mid-year? My girls don't want to leave. They enjoy school. My 4th grader has been overeducated by her peers about sex and I am UPSET about it and the lack of concern from the school authorities. It is like well they should not talk about it but kids will be kids. UG!

     Answer:  I strongly recommend the book Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers by Gordon Neufeld. It is not a book about homeschooling, but about how children's peers are becoming more important than their families and how that is causing many of societies problems (like hyper-sexualization of children). There is a lot of information out there about how to help kids make the transition into homeschooling, I think that this book identifies the challenges and offers solutions that I think are very relevant to homeschooling.