How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children."

Why Public Schools Hate Home-schooling Parents by Joel Turtel

Home-schooling is a great success. That's why many public-school authorities hate home-schooling parents.

Home-schoolers are a direct challenge to the public-school monopoly. This monopoly makes it almost impossible to fire tenured public-school teachers or principals. As a result, tenure gives most teachers life-time guaranteed jobs. They get this incredible benefit only because public schools have a lock on our children's education.

If public-school employees had to work for private schools and compete for their jobs in the real world, they would lose their security-blanket tenure. That's why school authorities view home-schooling parents who challenge their monopoly as a serious threat.

Many school officials also can't stand the fact that average parents who never went to college give their kids a better education than so-called public-school experts. Successful home-schooling parents therefore humiliate the failed public schools by comparison.

Home-schooling parents also humiliate school authorities who claim that only certified or licensed teachers are qualified to teach children. Most home-schooling parents thankfully never stepped foot inside a so-called teacher college or university department of education. Yet these parents give their children a superior education compared to public-school educated kids.

Also, many public-school officials resent home-schoolers because the typical public school loses about $7500 a year in tax money for each child that leaves the system. Tax money is the life blood of the public-school system. Tax money pays for public-school employees' generous salaries, benefits, and pensions. Is it any wonder why school authorities don't want to lose their gravy train?

For these reasons, until fairly recently, most state legislatures either outlawed homeschooling or tried to strangle it to death with regulations. In 1980, only Utah, Ohio, and Nevada officially recognized parents' rights to homeschool their children. In most other states, legislators continually harassed or prosecuted home-schoolers under criminal truancy laws and educational neglect charges.

By 2004, however, pressure from parents, Christian home-schooling organizations, and recent court rulings pushed all fifty states to enact statutes that allow home-schooling, as long as certain requirements are met. These requirements vary for each state.

In spite of these statutes, many states and school authorities still harass home-schooling parents. That is because the Supreme Court slapped parents in the face when they gave local governments the right to regulate home-schooling. As a result, many home-schooling parents are still harassed by local school officials.

If you are a homeschooling parent, you must know how to protect your legal rights. To do this, you should seriously consider joining the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Founded in 1983, HSDLA provides its members with legal representation against local school officials who might harass you, demand to supervise your home-schooling, or demand to periodically test your home-schooled children. You can join at their web site, http://www.hslda.org.

The Rutherford Institute is another well-known organization dedicated to protecting parents' rights and providing legal help to home-schooling parents. Their website is http://www.rutherford.org.

Joel Turtel is the author of "Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children."

Website: http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com,
Email: lbooksusa@aol.com,
Phone: 718-447-7348.

Article Copyrighted © 2005 by Joel Turtel
NOTE: You may post this Article on another website only if you set up a hyperlink to Joel Turtel's email address and website URL, http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/

appellant, in his home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs and the TYC will?

Yo,Peachy King why not tell these misers to put their "truancy" by putting a "matching" facility on the south side (Cine 6) that will meet the needs of the bike riders and skateboarders rec center?

Tru or false?

Lock up instead of physical education, why would an educated attorney ASSume that a government agency would possess the ability to:

"Under the record in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant, in his home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs to meet the conditions of probation."

Does that eliminate probation and enforces the incarceration with no Ways or means of oversight to insure that "provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs to meet the conditions of probation."

Hearsay
conjecture
speculation
clairvoyant
provide proof that he was better off,when it all started with "providers" of education or incarceration or "probation"????

What a waste of time this judge made of this child's future, without the insurance that this judge alleges will meet the needs in the "quality of care and level of support"

How is the child going to be "cared for"?


What quality is this judge "quality" defined by?

The same standard she would give for her own child?

I doubt it, with what intent was this child harmed??????

Where is the child's attorney?
















NUMBER 13-04-552-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________



J.A.W.R., A CHILD, Appellant,



v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________



On appeal from the County Court of Refugio County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez



Appellant, J.A.W.R., a child, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct[1] by committing the offense of endangering a child.[2] He was committed to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him committed to the Texas Youth Commission. We affirm. As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A juvenile judge has broad discretion to determine the proper disposition of a child who has been adjudicated as engaging in delinquent behavior. In re K.J.N., 103 S.W.3d 465, 465-66 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 2003, no pet.). Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court=s determination. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts unreasonably or arbitrarily and without reference to guiding rules and principles. Id. The guiding rules and principles in juvenile cases involving commitment outside the child=s home are found in the Texas Family Code. Id.; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

The family code permits a trial judge to commit a child to the Texas Youth Commission if: (1) it is in the child=s best interest to be placed outside the home; (2) reasonable efforts have been taken to prevent or eliminate the need for the child=s removal from the home; and (3) while in the home, the child cannot receive the quality of care and level of support and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04(i).



II. ANALYSIS

By his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant committed to the Texas Youth Commission. Specifically, appellant argues that there is no evidence to support the trial court=s finding that Athe child, in the child=s home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of probation.@[3] We disagree.

At the disposition hearing the State offered into evidence the Predisposition and Social History report prepared by the juvenile department. The recommendation in the report was that appellant be placed outside the home due to his need for more structure and discipline than was being provided by his parents. The report stated that appellant had been unsuccessful on a six-month deferred adjudication and unsuccessful on the subsequent court-ordered probation. Appellant was also unsuccessful on a second court-ordered probation on another cause. He was exhibiting serious signs of mental and emotional instability as well as more serious behavioral problems than in the past. The report also stated that appellant had failed to graduate to the eleventh grade because he did not complete his makeup work or his absences. Appellant had been referred for truancy.

Under the record in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant, in his home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs to meet the conditions of probation. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to the Texas Youth Commission. Appellant=s sole point of error is overruled.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.



NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice



Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 7th day of July, 2005.



[1] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 51.03 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

[2] See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.041(c) (Vernon 2003).

[3] Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in making the following findings: (1) that no community-based intermediate sanction is available to adequately address the needs of the juvenile or to adequately protect the needs of the community; and (2) that the gravity of the offense requires that the juvenile be confined to a secure facility. However, these findings made by the trial court are not required by statute in order to commit a juvenile to the Texas Youth Commission. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04(i) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Therefore, we will not address these findings as our conclusion would not affect the disposition of this appeal.