Friday, January 16, 2004

Legislative Alert for Calif...

Homeschoolers should be aware of AB 56 "5 Year Old Compulsory Education" (in effect mandates Kindergarten). Per the HSLDA, "AB 56 lowers the compulsory attendance age for entry into school from 6 to 5 years of age. This requirement will apply to all children, whether their parents plan to send them to public school or private school (including private home schools.). AB 56 also make "free" public preschool available to every child under 5 years of age on a voluntary basis. Should this bill pass, it could easily be followed by legislation to make institutionalized preschool mandatory. Universal preschool has been proposed by legislators in the past and is openly encouraged by proponents of early childhood education." (emphasis added) Also see my post on First5 - Mandatory Preschool in California here . The Home School Legal Defense Association opposes the bill for the following reasons: 1) AB 56 forces children into school too soon. 2) AB 56 is not necessary. 3) AB 56 decreases beneficial parental contact with their children. 4) AB 56 is based on faulty information. 5) AB 56 will have an adverse financial impact on all Californians. For more information on the bill and how to contact your state representative, visit the HSLDA website. Update: I'm reading The Revenge of Conscience and found a couple of paragraphs that seemed applicable to this idea of lowering the mandatory age in which the State thinks it should take our children. Before collectivism, our family law was based on a philosophy that ran something like this. Growing up takes time, and until the process reaches its end children are not fully capable of deciding what is best for them. Moreover, the family is a more fundamental institution than the state, based on a closer harmony of interests among its members. From these premises we may conclude that in normal families, during the period while children are growing up, their parents may be trusted to act in their best interests. It follows that the state should not intervene except on evidence that the parents are acting abusively. In other words it should confine itself to the restraint of wickedness rather than trying to absorb the functions of the family. Collectivism hides in a forest of reassuring bromides. "It takes a whole village to raise a child," the secular intones; "Every child is my child," the pious drowsily respond... I am reminded of an election-year scuffle between a father, who was also a candidate, and a social service functionary. "No government bureaucrat could love my children as I do," the father said. "That's not true," protested the functionary, "I love them just as much." "What are their names?" asked the father.

No comments: