South Shore Christian School

Don’t Press the Panic Button…Yet: Parental rights advocates are urging parents not to panic in the wake of a California Court of Appeals decision overturning a lower court ruling which found that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”  The court case started as a confidential juvenile proceeding, but then became public when the appeals court handed down its decision last week.

Jim Mason, senior counsel for Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), believes the ruling demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the 40-year-old California statutory law which permits homes schooling. The law, Mason points out, has not been a problem for home schoolers since its inception.  

Mason contends that the attorneys in the case should appeal to the California Supreme Court. “California has a procedure where you can ask the Supreme Court to de-publish an opinion by the court of appeals that was wrongly decided,” he explains. When a court opinion is de-published, it is essentially neutralized.

California legislators are also outraged over the decision. Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-El Cajon) has introduced ACR 115, which, if passed, would help mitigate the home schooling decision by reinforcing parental rights in California. The resolution refers to the court decision as a “misguided interpretation of the law.” All but one of the Republican state legislators have asked to cosponsor the resolution.

Even Governor Schwarzenegger condemned the decision, saying, “Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights then, as elected officials, we will.”

For Mike Ferris, President of HSLDA, the first choice is for the Appeals Court to agree to rehear the case and reverse its ruling. Even if they decide not to rehear the case, the case can still be de-published by a higher court. Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is organizing a petition to urge the Supreme Court to de-publish the court opinion.  PJI is representing Sunland Christian School, the private home school program in which Rachel L. was enrolled. 

Vermont v. the Rest of America: Yesterday, the Vermont Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case which many believe will have far reaching consequences on the battle to protect traditional marriage. The case involves the two women Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller and their custody battle over Lisa’s daughter who was conceived by artificial insemination when Lisa and Janet were in a same-sex relationship.

In 2000, Miller and Jenkins lived in Virginia but traveled to Vermont to obtain a civil union. They split up in 2003 when Miller became a born-again Christian and moved with her daughter back to Virginia. At that time, Miller filed for the dissolution of the civil union. Jenkins eventually sued Miller to gain parental rights, including shared custody of the little girl.

Last year, a lower Vermont court ordered that the laws of Virginia, where same-sex civil unions are illegal, could not trump the state laws of Vermont, thereby requiring, according to state law, that Miller share custody of her daughter with Jenkins.

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and Miller’s attorney, believes the Vermont court faces several issues to consider. “I think this case illustrates that when one state recognizes same-sex unions, it affects the other states … it disrupts families, it undermines the stability of moms and dads,” Staver points out. “Therefore we can’t buy the notion that civil unions okay. No, same-sex marriage should not be recognized, neither should civil unions.”

In April, Liberty Counsel will argue other aspects of this case before the Virginia Supreme Court. Staver says that if the Virginia and Vermont high courts reach different conclusions on the case and states’ rights, the case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

When Sin Isn’t Quite Sin: This week, Ellison Research released a poll of 1,000 American adults which asked them questions about their understanding of what constitutes sin. For the purposes of the poll, sin was defined as “something that is almost always considered wrong, particularly from a religious or moral perspective.” According to that definition, 87 percent of Americans believe sin exists.
 
Among those who believe in sin, 81 percent classified adultery as sin, 74 percent named racism, 65 percent said using recreational drugs was sin, 52 percent named homosexuality, and 56 percent said abortion was sin. Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, says while most Americans believe in the concept of sin, there are inconsistencies when it comes to what qualifies as sin.
 
“For instance, Americans do tend to define sin according to degrees,” Sellers explains. “We have 81 percent who say yes, adultery is a sin. However, only 43 percent say having sexual thoughts about someone you’re not married to is a sin. Same thing on drinking — only 14 percent believe that drinking any alcohol is a sin, yet significantly more than that believe that getting drunk is a sin.”
 
Ellison believes that religious leaders can learn from the survey. “A lot of religious leaders would be very surprised to find out what ‘their own people’ believe,” he says. 

Stunning Court Decision in California: The California Court of Appeals found there does not exist a legal right for parents to home school their children. Justice H. Walter Croskey stated in his February 28th opinion that “Parents who fail to may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.” The case being considered was entitled In re Rachel L. The Appeals court decision overturned a lower court that found that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

The student who was the basis for the case, Rachel L, was enrolled in a private home schooling program, Sunland Christian School. Justice Croskey especially objected to what he called “the ruse of enrolling in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent.” According to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the group representing the school and student, the home school program “has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than twenty years.”

Brad Dacus, president of PJI, believes “The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking. It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools. If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions.”

Considering Same-Sex Marriage: This week, California’s highest court heard three hours of oral arguments in Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, a case concerning a state law regarding same-sex marriage. The issue in question is whether the state equality pledge demands that the constitutional right to marriage be extended to same-sex couples.

At the hearing, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Glen Lavy defended the state’s current marriage laws that specify that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Lavy argued, “The government should promote and encourage strong families.  In this case, marriage laws that will do that are under attack by political special interests wishing to further their agenda.”

Lavy continued, “The law California voters passed defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Californians know this is the foundation for strong families.  But certain special interest groups are trying to bypass the democratic process by asking the court to redefine marriage.”

In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, California’s Defense of Marriage Act, but in March 2005, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled the state’s marriage laws were unconstitutional, finding “no rational purpose” to “limit” marriage to the union of one man and one woman. However, the California Court of Appeals reversed that decision in October 2006.  The case has now reached the California Supreme Court.

Focusing Upon and Fixing Faculty Culture: Larry Graff addresses in Education Daily the changing focus of school leaders on ways to increase their schools’ performance in light of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Congress is currently considering adding a measure that speaks to requiring “highly qualified principals” for schools that are restructuring or failing to meet the necessary benchmarks set by NCLB. However, many education experts believe that success for these schools lies in improving the faculty culture.

School administrators can have a tightly focused strategic vision for their schools, but if the faculty fail to understand the vision or are not committed to such vision, the administrator’s plan will not succeed. Bill Simmer, director of association relations at Independent School Management, believes “Faculty culture is what you market to deliver the mission of the school.”

Simmer continues, “Faculty is the bridge between who you are as an institution and where you are going in the lives of children. There’s the faculty handbook that talks about school policies and procedures; then there’s the real faculty handbook, which is the way things are done.” He adds, “Faculty display a number of patterns—both positive and negative—that can be observed over time.”

Graff lists three aspects of a healthy faculty culture:

·         “Immersed in core values”: The faculty must not only be personally committed to the core values of the school, but also be prepared to implement these values in their teaching. Simmer advocates using surveys to track how successful the school performs in this key area.

·         “Predictable and supportive behavior”: The faculty should clearly understand the expectations of the administration. With these expectations there must be administrative support for the faculty. “In order to deliver high student performance, a state of support and predictability has to exist within the faculty,” Simmer said. He believes that such support cannot produce the desired results without a sense of predictability. The faculty must be able to rely on certain immutable things or the culture will lack focus. Likewise, if clearly articulated expectations and predictability lack a foundation of administrative support, teachers will grow discouraged. According to Simmer, “If we have high expectations, then we have to build high levels of support.” A significant part of the support must be merited praise. He added, “You want the person to savor it when the school administrator says, ‘Job well done.’”  

·         “Student-focused”: Teachers need to be reminded that their main role is to educate students. “There are teachers who are English professors first,” Simmer commented, “and they also teach kids.” Master teachers are first and foremost about their students.