Homeschooling in the White House

[Mommyfaithe]

I'm sorry, but you are now conflating your own, legal, decision to homeschool with taking public monies as a benefit when the family in question was not legally entitled to them. Big difference!

 

Bill

 

Nah...no " conflating", maybe bad metaphoring.:D. Just watching the log in my own eye before picking at the speck in my "neighbor's". Sort of......:D

[mirth]

What if you feel the federal gov't should not be, or provide, any example of schooling for the public at large? He would be more likely to get my vote if he used his pull as senator to publicly urge dissolving the entire US Dept of Education and sent his children to any-school-I-don't-care-which.

[Classical Katharine]

I'm not sure what I think of this controversy but here are a few thoughts that occur to me as possibly relevant.

 

The Santorums seem to have understood that physically they lived in VA, not in Pennsylvania. So either they were being devious and hoping they wouldn't get caught cheating, or they had a good conscience and didn't think they were cheating and they did have a reasonable basis for thinking that. I don't know which it is, but I'd hesitate to be certain it's the first when the other is also possible . . . I'd be pretty unhappy to find out it had been the first, though, so it is a serious matter and a fair set of questions. In a way, though, that's another reason I don't want to be sure it's the first if it might not be . . .

 

I don't know them or their reasons, but in at least some legal matters, people are allowed to interpret a matter in their favor pretty aggressively. So in the tax code, say, my understanding is that if something can be taken more than one way, reasonably, we are entitled to take it in the way that's most advantageous to us. Maybe their understanding was that their owning a home and paying taxes in Pennsylvania counted as residence for these purposes. I know it seems weird that there's this whole legal world in which words don't mean what they normally do, but there IS this whole legal world where there are terms of art, and it's okay to interact with the specialized vocabulary of a discipline knowing that that's what it is. Especially given that it looks as if the relevant statute or rule hadn't defined residency. If they were paying taxes in PA then weren't their own PA tax dollars funding the very tuition benefit that people are saying they were essentially stealing? Maybe I'm not getting something, but I wonder if all this together made them think it was reasonable.

 

But, I don't know--if no state or municipality or court has ever upheld a notion of residency such as the one the Santorums were assuming here, that might be another matter.

 

OTOH in law I think there's also a concept that it's okay to determine the status of the undefined by probing it: you try, you get an answer, you get clarification. So if residency sometimes has the legal meaning that suited the Santorums here, and the statute didn't clarify and wasn't explicit to exclude that meaning, then it may have been okay for them to see what would happen if they tried it.

 

I agree it would be loathsome if they basically did believe or know it to be illegal but "wink wink nudge nudge I'm a senator" . . . I'm just not sure we can conclude that.

 

I could be wrong on this too . . . but on being against public school and yet taking this benefit, I'm against public school too, and would like to see it replaced, but meantime would I be against ever using the public school's ball fields? I wouldn't be against it myself--I helped pay for them, albeit unwillingly! I'd love to see the Santorums get to WTM and use better materials, but I'm not sure what they did was hypocrisy about public education.

 

I can understand preferring not to use such a benefit, say because of appearances, or because of fear of rendering myself complacent, but I can also see how someone might use the benefit with a good conscience. To me it's "meat offered to idols"--the first time the meat was offered to an idol, there was sin. The person who then bought it at the meat market and ate it wasn't worshipping the idol. [Paul, Corinthians.] But if someone else has a different conviction, fine--"let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

I don't work for anyone's campaign . . . maybe I should say that!

[Classical Katharine]

I do agree with Wendy K that if there were a difference in regulatory burden/intent it would change things . . . since "render unto Caesar" does mean that unless the law is asking me to sin, I must obey. So if my home state wants homeschoolers to fill out forms, operate under some set of requirements--and we do definitely "live in" at least our home state, that's for sure--and some other state doesn't have the same requirements, then there's the little matter that I owe obedience to my home state in a matter where they clearly intend me to bring my behavior under their regulation (again, unless they are telling me to break a commandment of God's).

 

Was that a factor in this case? I missed it if so (could easily have missed something).

Edited February 24, 2012 by Classical Katharine
reword

[amey311]

I don't think that the idea of following the different state's regulations is exactly the same. More the same would be if we kept our house here in Phoenix (basically zero regulations and several public cyber charters) as a rental property while we moved to New York (the opposite). Yes, we own property and pay property taxes there, but we're clearly NOT living there. Should I be able to use the AZ public cyber charters when I live full time in another state?

[nukeswife]

It's really sad that they did that at all. I get what some are saying, but they did break the law.

 

I mean dh and I are legal residents of FL, but also own a property and pay taxes on it in WI which has very easy regs, but due to him being in the Navy we currently live in VA, but we have to follow the laws of VA when it comes to homeschooling even though the laws of WI would be much easier with less hoops to jump through.

[wapiti]

I'm not sure what I think of this controversy but here are a few thoughts that occur to me as possibly relevant.

 

The Santorums seem to have understood that physically they lived in VA, not in Pennsylvania. So either they were being devious and hoping they wouldn't get caught cheating, or they had a good conscience and didn't think they were cheating and they did have a reasonable basis for thinking that. I don't know which it is, but I'd hesitate to be certain it's the first when the other is also possible . . . I'd be pretty unhappy to find out it had been the first, though, so it is a serious matter and a fair set of questions. In a way, though, that's another reason I don't want to be sure it's the first if it might not be . . .

 

I don't know them or their reasons, but in at least some legal matters, people are allowed to interpret a matter in their favor pretty aggressively. So in the tax code, say, my understanding is that if something can be taken more than one way, reasonably, we are entitled to take it in the way that's most advantageous to us. Maybe their understanding was that their owning a home and paying taxes in Pennsylvania counted as residence for these purposes. I know it seems weird that there's this whole legal world in which words don't mean what they normally do, but there IS this whole legal world where there are terms of art, and it's okay to interact with the specialized vocabulary of a discipline knowing that that's what it is. Especially given that it looks as if the relevant statute or rule hadn't defined residency. If they were paying taxes in PA then weren't their own PA tax dollars funding the very tuition benefit that people are saying they were essentially stealing? Maybe I'm not getting something, but I wonder if all this together made them think it was reasonable.

 

But, I don't know--if no state or municipality or court has ever upheld a notion of residency such as the one the Santorums were assuming here, that might be another matter.

 

OTOH in law I think there's also a concept that it's okay to determine the status of the undefined by probing it: you try, you get an answer, you get clarification. So if residency sometimes has the legal meaning that suited the Santorums here, and the statute didn't clarify and wasn't explicit to exclude that meaning, then it may have been okay for them to see what would happen if they tried it.

 

I agree it would be loathsome if they basically did believe or know it to be illegal but "wink wink nudge nudge I'm a senator" . . . I'm just not sure we can conclude that.

 

I could be wrong on this too . . . but on being against public school and yet taking this benefit, I'm against public school too, and would like to see it replaced, but meantime would I be against ever using the public school's ball fields? I wouldn't be against it myself--I helped pay for them, albeit unwillingly! I'd love to see the Santorums get to WTM and use better materials, but I'm not sure what they did was hypocrisy about public education.

 

I can understand preferring not to use such a benefit, say because of appearances, or because of fear of rendering myself complacent, but I can also see how someone might use the benefit with a good conscience. To me it's "meat offered to idols"--the first time the meat was offered to an idol, there was sin. The person who then bought it at the meat market and ate it wasn't worshipping the idol. [Paul, Corinthians.] But if someone else has a different conviction, fine--"let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

I don't work for anyone's campaign . . . maybe I should say that!

 

This raises some good questions. I haven't read this whole thread, and I don't know about the details of this issue, but it does not seem particularly unreasonable for a senator to be subject to the rights and responsibilities of residency of his home state, even though he (and his family) spent a great deal of time elsewhere for the purposes of his job. He has to be a legal resident of his state, does he not; the bigger question is whether his residency corresponds to that of his kids. I can't say I'm a fan of the guy for other reasons, but this issue does not bother me in the least, nor am I troubled by a person who both criticizes and uses the PS (hey, I do that!).

 

eta, I bet there's not a ton of caselaw on state residency for the purposes of what state cyber schools congressional representatives may or may not use.

Edited February 24, 2012 by wapiti

[nukeswife]

I don't see why being a member of congress or the senate would negate the residency requirements for schooling, home or public.

 

I mean if the kids would have been in PS they would have had to go to the PS zoned for the home they were living in. Just because the were staying in VA but they maintained residency in PA because of being a senator they couldn't go in to the VA school and say, ok they can come here but you have to follow the schedule and curriculum set for by so and so district in the city of blah in PA because that's where our residency is for.

 

Just like us military folks, we have to follow the laws for homeschooling of the state we are physically living in because if the kids were in PS they'd be going to those schools in the district of the physical residence.

 

If you're a senator or congress person, and you moved your family to VA since most of your time is spent there, then you should have to follow the VA homeschooling laws because that is where you children are being educated.

[Teachin'Mine]

I thought it was neat that our current President attributed his success in school to the "afterschooling" his mother had done with him. It was actually before schooling and began early in the day. :) I know that they both take a very active interest in their daughters' education.

[wapiti]

It's a good point that the students may be subject to the schooling requirements where they live. However, saying that one is subject to the requirements of state X by living there is not the same thing as saying someone is "stealing" from state Y if they are also legal residents and taxpayers of state Y. In other words, whether there was compliance with VA law is a completely separate issue from whether PA law was violated. There are specific definitions of legal residency, and I have no idea about the particulars in this case, except to say that it's likely that a senator is a legal resident of the state he represents. Whether that applies to his kids I don't know.

[butterflymommy]

I don't think that the idea of following the different state's regulations is exactly the same. More the same would be if we kept our house here in Phoenix (basically zero regulations and several public cyber charters) as a rental property while we moved to New York (the opposite). Yes, we own property and pay property taxes there, but we're clearly NOT living there. Should I be able to use the AZ public cyber charters when I live full time in another state?

 

I've wondered the same thing-- if you are paying taxes on a rental property can you utilize the zoned school for that property. In our case both houses are in the same city but the rental property is zoned for a bilingual program that I briefly considered.

[Alice]

I haven't really followed the controversy, nor do I have much of an opinion on Santorum.

 

But I do have this fantasy that if he's elected that maybe we can join the White House co-op.

 

Also, I haven't totally followed the arguments or discussion here but VA homeschool regulations are much easier than PA. Using a PA cyber school wouldn't have been done to get out of following VA regs.

[TravelingChris]

I had forgotten about this but I had already decided I didn't like his hypocrisy over lawsuits. His wife sued and he was a co-plaintiff for $500,000 a chiropractor over a ruptured disc (which itself is not an unusual event even if you never see a chiropractor, Many people get them simply as a result of walking upright for years). But anyway, Sen. Santorum had at the same time a bill in the Senate that he was the sponsor to limit lawsuits to 250,000. They won and initially the award was over 300,000 but then it was reduced to under 200,000 after an appeal.

 

Like a pp said, I get very, very unhappy with the way many politicians get rich while supposedly serving the public. They aren't paid that well and unless they are somehow independently wealthy or living very frugally or had other income, there really isn't a way for them to legitimately get to be millionaires or multimillionares on the public dole. They only make 174,000 a year and with that, they have to maintain two residences unless they are the local Senators or Representatives. How so many of them end up with millions is what bothers me.

 

Oh, and yes, I am one who is more bothered by privileged people stealing or other wrongdoing than some bum. I think the Mayans had it right in that respect in their legal system- the punishment for stealing was worse if the person was of a higher class.

[garddwr]

It's a good point that the students may be subject to the schooling requirements where they live. However, saying that one is subject to the requirements of state X by living there is not the same thing as saying someone is "stealing" from state Y if they are also legal residents and taxpayers of state Y. In other words, whether there was compliance with VA law is a completely separate issue from whether PA law was violated. There are specific definitions of legal residency, and I have no idea about the particulars in this case, except to say that it's likely that a senator is a legal resident of the state he represents. Whether that applies to his kids I don't know.

 

I think it is possible for someone to feel this was a gray area, especially in the case of public official who do in fact retain residency in their home state in spite of living elsewhere. Private individuals are generally required to consider themselves residents of the state in which they primarily live--this will be where they pay income tax, register to vote, register vehicles, obtain drivers licences, etc.. Military personnel, elected officials, and certain other government officials (such as foreign service personnel serving overseas) do in fact have different rules. They continue to pay income tax and vote in their home state, and may also retain their home state driver's licence etc. They are also counted as residents for purposes such as in-state tuition at state universities in their home state. Given all this, it does not seem unreasonable to me that someone would think they could also consider themselves residents of their home state for purposes of K-12 educational opportunities. I would not personally interpret the situation that way, but I don't think it is preposterous for someone to do so.

 

--Sarah, who has never been a senator but grew up in a Foreign Service family and served in the Air Force.

[ElizaG]

That was certainly a part of the controversy, but also his stand against publicly funded education didn't seem to match up with the fact that his family was benefitting from it.

 

Well, I agree with you, except, most people don't seem to care about that. ;)

I care about this question of alleged hypocrisy, but the last thread got closed before I could post. :)

 

The Santorums seem to be coming at this from the tradition of Catholic social philosophy, which doesn't have an issue with the concept of state-funded education in itself. In fact, we believe it's in keeping with justice for civil society to offer support to parents. NB, the key word here is offer. The family is the fundamental unit of society, and thus the state exists to serve families, not to usurp the parents' roles.

 

According to this line of thought, parents shouldn't be required to send their children to public schools, nor to any schools, for that matter. While the state has the right to set some minimal standards for education (with the hope of ensuring that the children are adequately prepared for citizenship), these shouldn't be unduly burdensome, and should respect the parents' consciences and religious freedom. So it's not that the government has no role in education, but rather that the parents' role is the primary one. Initiatives that promote greater school choice, such as vouchers and charter schools, can be seen as a way of putting these values into action.

 

This also relates to the principle of subsidiarity, which says that decisions should be made as locally as is feasible (e.g., family vs. informal community group vs. city vs. state vs. federal vs. international bodies). Someone who values subsidiarity might be against all federal educational programs, while being supportive of similar programs when they come from a state initiative. Of course, this wouldn't be hypocrisy, even if it might seem that way at a very superficial glance.

 

When it comes to evaluating people's opinions on complex issues, we need to pay close attention to the nuances of what is and isn't being said. With so much black and white thinking going on around us, it's easy to hear a few words and then leap to assumptions about someone's beliefs and motivations. Sometimes the reality turns out to be quite different.

[justasque]

Haven't read the whole thread, but thought I'd throw in a couple of points.

 

~ My PA school district told me that when it comes to residency in complex situations, the first, main question is "where does the child sleep". If he sleeps in district A, then that's the district where he should enroll/report. Given that, if both VA and PA had public cyber-charter schools, and the family spent the majority of the school year in VA, it would have been appropriate for the children to enroll/report in VA. (Did VA have a public cyber option at that time? I don't know.)

 

~ Regarding taxes, the property taxes the family paid to the PA school district would have been on the order of thousands. The tuition fees the district would have paid to the private company running the public cyber-charter school were significantly more - on the order of tens of thousands. (The district's funding is partially local property taxes and partially state money; not sure of how much of the tuition would have come from state funding and therefore from state taxes of various kinds.)

[Alicia64]

I had forgotten about this but I had already decided I didn't like his hypocrisy over lawsuits. His wife sued and he was a co-plaintiff for $500,000 a chiropractor over a ruptured disc (which itself is not an unusual event even if you never see a chiropractor, Many people get them simply as a result of walking upright for years). But anyway, Sen. Santorum had at the same time a bill in the Senate that he was the sponsor to limit lawsuits to 250,000. They won and initially the award was over 300,000 but then it was reduced to under 200,000 after an appeal.

 

If this is true, this bugs me. I have to be honest I've had a bad year dealing with very bad lawyers. Bad as in unethical, creepy, Lord Voldemort types.

 

Since dh and I have been dealing with these lawyers it's struck me as odd that we as a nation hire so many lawyers to be congress members and the presidents.

 

So long ago Shakespeare said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 

Yet the first thing we do is hire them to run our country. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Sorry if I hijacked the blog. Interesting discussion.

 

Alley

Edited February 24, 2012 by Alicia64
I can't spell when I'm discussing lawyers.

[pqr]

It sure would put home schooling in the spotlight!

 

 

I think it might put the ps (public school) system in the spotlight. We all know that most politicians who can afford it put their children in private schools if only because of the disaster that DC schools have become. Nevertheless this would be an entirely new manner of avoiding the ps system. A hsing president would only emphasize the failure of the entire system of education in this nation and perhaps something would actually be done about it.

 

I would love to see more prominence be given to hsing as a choice.

Edited February 25, 2012 by pqr

[mirth]

I think it might put the ps (public school) system in the spotlight. We all know that most politicians who can afford it put their children in private schools if only because of the disaster that DC schools have become. Nevertheless this would be an entirely new manner of avoiding the ps system. A hsing president would only emphasize the failure of the entire system of education in this nation and perhaps something would actually be done about it.

 

I changed my mind and agree that you're right.

[elizabeth]

The thread and attached article are political as heck. I thought there was a rule somewhere about that.