Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Homeschooler's setback...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Homeschooler's setback...

    I thought this would be a fun topic....(TR, find some percocet, quick! :> )

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

    A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

    The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

    "At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

    The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

    The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

    The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

    Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

    Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

    "California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

    Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

    "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
    Union pleased with ruling

    The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

    "We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

    A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."

    Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. "With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.

    Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

    Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight.

    Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

    "I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments."

    She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

    The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."
    Began as child welfare case

    The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

    A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

    The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

    The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

    Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.
    Ruling will apply statewide

    Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

    "California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.

    But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

    "They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers."

    Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."
    Online resources

    The ruling: To view the ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, go to links.sfgate.com/ZCQR.
    ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
    ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

  • #2
    Re: Homeschooler's setback...

    is there a stirring the pot emoticon???

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Homeschooler's setback...

      I think I'm bored with Julie today!
      ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
      ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Homeschooler's setback...

        Oh, it is definitely the second emoticon.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Homeschooler's setback...

          Eh

          It won't stand up long.

          Too many homeschoolers, too many success stories, too much political fall-out from this court decision for it to stand.

          Unfortunately you have a judge here who, rather than ruling on a highly specific situation, decided to make a political and personal opinion a court ruling and affect hundreds of thousands of people in his state.

          I'm not terribly concerned because it's going to be fought tooth and nail all the way up if need be. HSLDA has been itching to get a federal law guaranteeing the right to homeschool or otherwise direct the education of a child by the parents. I don't know if I agree that that is necessary - but here's there chance to do it.

          Besides this would be political suicide in Texas. Homeschooling is quite safe there.

          And, I am sure the teacher's union is happy with the ruling - homeschooling parents have been showing them up for many years. It's about federal money and looking bad for them - not about the children or the value of a good education, unfortunately.
          Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
          With fingernails that shine like justice
          And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Homeschooler's setback...

            Not much more for me to add:


            I have been given permission by Debbie Schwarzer, HSC Legal Team Co-chair to share this here concerning the California

            I have been astonished about the hype about this case. So many have been making
            sensational claims that parents will be criminally prosecuted, etc.

            Please rest assured about a number of things. First, the law, other than this
            court’s interpretation, hasn’t changed. Parents involved in a truancy prosecution
            might face criminal charges, but only after a rather lengthy series of hearings and
            court orders, and only if the parents failed to comply with the orders. It would be
            a criminal contempt charge, which isn’t nothing but doesn’t land you in Pelican Bay.

            We have never known conscientious parents ever to be prosecuted under truancy laws
            to the point of contempt charges. It’s highly unlikely.

            The media also appear to be saying that no one can teach their children without a
            credential. I am not certain that the holding is that broad, and I also doubt it
            would survive legal challenge.

            The holding really applied to private ISPs (there are persistent mistatements, that
            began with fact statements in the case, that the family was enrolled in a charter.
            Obviously a school with the name “Christian” in it wouldn’t be a public charter. It
            was a private ISP). It could be read by someone reading broadly as applying to any
            situation where the child is not continuously in the presence of a credentialed
            teacher.

            The court started on a very slippery path of appearing to think that some situations
            were OK and others weren’t, effectively trying to enact an entire code of
            regulations for governing this situation from the bench. He hasn’t been given the
            constitutional authority, of course, to do this.

            How do we get rid of this case?

            There are a number of paths. One is seeking actual review by the Supreme Court.
            HSC and at least several of the other major groups’ legal teams aren’t in favor of
            that. Even if you could get the court to accept your petition (they only take 3-5%
            of cases), the chances that it will be decided the way you want aren’t real good.
            It’s a very dangerous road to take, because if the Supreme Court were to affirm the
            appellate court ruling on either of the main points (constitutional or statutory),
            there aren’t many options left. The constitutional argument, of course, could be
            appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the statutory case about the proper
            interpretation of the California Education Code could not. California Supreme Court
            is the last stop on that road. If that happens, then you have two bad choices that
            I’ll discuss below.

            There is another much easier choice, and it’s the one we want, as well as the one
            being trumpeted in the HSLDA petition. You ask the California Supreme Court to
            depublish the opinion, or, in other words, have them say that while this might have
            been the right result in this particular case involving this particular set of
            facts, the court finds that the reach of the opinion is overbroad and should not
            become law for the entire state. That is the choice we all (meaning HSC and, I
            believe, the other groups) want.

            You get this by filing a letter with the Supreme Court in compliance with the
            applicable rules of court. While anyone can file one by stating their interest, we
            DO NOT think it is an appropriate use of grassroots activism. We DO NOT want every
            HSC member or HSLDA member or grandmother or irate citizen dashing off their letters
            to the Supreme Court. There are sober, measured, legal arguments to make about why
            depublication is appropriate, and those arguments are made after researching the
            applicable standards, etc. The Supreme Court will not be swayed positively by
            public outcry. In fact, it could backfire, and backfire badly.

            If the Supreme Court affirms on the statutory points, then the two bad choices are
            to either seek legislation or to do nothing and hope that a further case is brought
            that can involve a better set of facts and better explanation of the issues (and
            reaching a better result). Both are very dangerous. Legislation isn’t the answer
            because of the extraordinary strength of the teachers’ union. It is unlikely we
            will see any legislation ultimately pass that gives us the freedom we have today.
            And the second choice is dangerous. I know lots of families that would make
            terrific test case defendants — they’re conscientious, they actually get their kids
            educated, they follow the laws. But we don’t get to pick who the family is. As a
            friend of mine said, we couldn’t have gotten a worse set of facts for this case if
            we had a contest.

            We are trying to get one or more of the fanciest law firms in the state to help us
            on taking the fangs out of this case. We know what we’re doing. Please let us do
            our jobs.

            I would be personally, professionally, and, as a representative of HSC, globally
            grateful if everyone on this list would calm down and ask others to calm down.
            Specifically, I would ask people:

            a. Not to write to the Supreme Court or any court.

            b. Not to talk to their legislators or make any public statements about a need for
            legislation.

            c. Tell their neighbors, friends, lists, groups both of the above and to educate
            them about the choices available and about how panic isn’t necessary, marches on
            Sacramento aren’t necessary, etc.

            I wish this were the type of situation where we could put the fury, passion and
            energy of the members of this list to good use. Trust me, if we end up having to go
            the legislative route, we will have that situation at some points. But this isn’t
            that type of situation, and too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of
            helps.

            Thanks for listening.

            Debbie Schwarzer
            HSC Legal Team Co-chair
            http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/groupnews/

            The Governator has already publicly denounced the court ruling and asked the court to reverse it/remove it.
            Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
            With fingernails that shine like justice
            And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Homeschooler's setback...

              You know, it's funny, Annie, but I have a friend in another part of the state who homeschools his children because of his experiences growing up in the communist USSR.

              His observations are interesting because he has pointed out a few times that the route our own public education system is taking has a number of similarities to the version used in the USSR. Very interesting. I'll put in a plug for John Taylor Gatto's book here as well.
              Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
              With fingernails that shine like justice
              And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                Originally posted by Tabula Rasa
                You know, it's funny, Annie, but I have a friend in another part of the state who homeschools his children because of his experiences growing up in the communist USSR.

                His observations are interesting because he has pointed out a few times that the route our own public education system is taking has a number of similarities to the version used in the USSR. Very interesting. I'll put in a plug for John Taylor Gatto's book here as well.
                I've attended both and don't really see any similarities. I think both have their positive and negative aspects.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                  http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

                  This was discussed on The Diane Rehm show today 3/24/08 , so if you are interested you can listen to the debate there, interesting. I"m pro homeschooling and have family members doing it well, but also had friends who's parents never really finished homeschooling them. When they became 15 they started working for dad's company, thought it was cool they had cash, and they never got their GED. Sad cause now in their later 20's, I'm sure in the next decade they will reflect negatively at some point of their experiance.

                  If you can do it well, it can be great and actually better your children's learning experiance, if you don't do it will you disadvantage your child - maybe, depends on the school district...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                    I'm not surprised there are homeschool 'drop-outs'. Dropping out of school seems to be a universal phenomenon that applies to kids who go to public school, private school, college, tech schools, etc. So, why not home education as well?

                    Homeschooling has become just another educational choice. I'm finding more and more that the people I just happen to meet - at the park, the library, the hair salon, etc. - have contemplated or are currently contemplating home education for their child(ren). Portions of our society are seeing the value in the way formal education was conducted prior to the current century of public education and are choosing to go back to those 'roots'. It's a 'movement' that encompasses so many different economic, racial, political, and religious (as well as a-religious families that it can't be pigeon-holed. It's a movement based on a relatively "pure" idea - obtaining the best education for a family's children.

                    That's why judges like the one in California are, increasingly, seen as narrow-minded people controlled by emotion rather than reason (or, in some cases by lobbyists such as those used by teacher's unions).
                    Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                    With fingernails that shine like justice
                    And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                      To be clear the 'Stanford guy' is Rob Reich who has been a very outspoken critic (and, some would say opponent) of parent-directed education. He is a proponent of the idea that children are unable to be good citizens unless they have been educated as a herd by a government institution - and, specifically at that, by a 'liberal Democrat' institution (his words).

                      I think a few programs throw in his words against home education so they can offer the crank viewpoint on the subject so as to be fair and balanced.

                      Unfortunately for Professor Reich failed American citizens (ostensibly those who fill our prisons along with those who commit more petty crimes, capitalist CEO's which are considered irresponsible and unethical members of society by the debates of this website, and everyday members of society that, through their actions, prove NOT to be good citizens) are overwhelmingly NOT home educated persons (unless his definition of a "failed" citizen is someone who does not share his very liberal views ). The reality of the situation doesn't support his philosophical presuppositions and hypotheticals. And, there truly are no statistics to support the imaginings of such 'intellectuals'.
                      Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                      With fingernails that shine like justice
                      And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                        An interesting response to Rob Reich's book:

                        http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200204230.asp

                        snippet:

                        We must ask ourselves at this point, "why is Reich so afraid of home education?" We are a small segment of society. If we are really afraid that children are suffering from a lack of autonomy in education, why not focus upon the much larger populations of children who really will suffer a lack of autonomy, even as adults. By any definition, children who grow up illiterate, unable to do basic math, and lack even the capacity as adults to exercise choice rights are far less autonomous than home educated children who have received an education based on the world view of their parents. Home schoolers represent little more than 2% of school aged students. Why focus on them? If it is children we care about, we should focus on those kids who are not being given even the most rudimentary of education in America's failing public schools. If Reich really cares, perhaps he should initially focus on those children trapped in educational failure.

                        The real root of the problem home education presents to Reich is that home educators have removed themselves from America's educational system and its underlying values. Their children are beyond the reach of the elite and the predominate worldview of relativism or secular humanism. As home schooling continues to grow and prosper, this will become increasingly troublesome to the educational establishment. But more than being beyond the intellectual elite, the children of home educators are largely beyond the reach of the state. It will take novel legal theories to break this constitutional protection. And it is here that Reich's theories are most concerning, indeed dangerous.

                        What Reich is doing, intentional or not, is setting an academic framework by which an activist judge might rule in favor of heavy restrictions on home education, while at the same time avoiding the obvious assault on precedent and the Constitution. By extending what are in essence adult rights of choice to children, and declaring children to have an interest in education separate from the state's and separate from their parent's, Reich provides the opportunity to take away freedoms which Americans, indeed humans in general, have deemed fundamental for thousands of years.
                        Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                        With fingernails that shine like justice
                        And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                          Oh, I understand, oceanchild!

                          I posted the above and am posting the following just as information.

                          Sometimes knowing the background of a person some view as an authority on a subject very much helps by adding that grain of salt to be taken with that person's words.




                          Another response to Reich's book from a different angle:

                          http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/194/jatch.html

                          snippet:

                          Critics of homeschooling are likely to cite Reich's paper simply because it supports increased regulation of homeschooling. Many will not have read it. We can emphasize the strengths of homeschooling and make general points that are most likely to convince the specific person or group we are addressing. Here are some suggestions.

                          ? Consider the source. Many members of the educational establishment see homeschooling as a threat, so its not surprising that a paper from the educational establishment calls for increased control of homeschooling through state regulation.

                          ? Reich acknowledges that homeschooling works, sometimes even better than conventional schools. ("In fact, some evidence suggests that in some circumstances, parents who homeschool their children may be better at achieving the state's and the child's educational interests than public or private schools." Page 27) His main argument for increased regulation of homeschooling is the theoretical possibility that homeschoolers could isolate their children, fail to allow them appropriate autonomy, and fail to prepare them to participate in civic affairs. Reich does not present substantial evidence that such possibilities are realities; he presents only a few unusual individual cases. Perhaps most importantly, he fails to realize that current homeschools could not be doing the good work that even he acknowledges under the regulations he proposes. His focus on theoretical constructs would lead to regulations that would undermine an existing reality even he appreciates.

                          ? One of Reich's key questions is how the state can ensure that citizens are able to participate in civic affairs, if they choose to do so. He overlooks the fact that many homeschoolers are among the most politically active citizens, partly because we have been forced to work hard to ensure that the state acknowledges our right to homeschool. Both parents and children know a lot about law from personal experience.

                          ? Reich accepts as normative the de facto isolation faced by children from non-homeschooling families and conventional schools. They happen to share Reich's values. Middle and upper middle class parents and schools do not present being lower class as a viable alternative. Religious schools do not bend over backwards to encourage children to seriously consider other religions.

                          ? Regulations proposed by Reich would undermine basic legal principles and civil liberties.

                          -- Strict regulation of homeschooling as a way of guaranteeing that no homeschooled children are isolated violates the old legal maxim "Hard cases make bad laws." A law designed to prevent a few extreme cases is almost certain to be long, difficult to enforce, and more likely to prevent good people from doing good than bad people from doing bad.

                          -- Reich states, "The burden of proof that homeschools will satisfy the state's and the child's interest in education must rest with the parents." (Page 36) This violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

                          -- By giving public schools the power and authority to require that homeschools meet state standards, Reich's regulations would deny families the right to choose an education consistent with their principles and beliefs.

                          -- Reich puts the state's interests ahead of parents' or children's interests by giving the state the power and authority to decide whether families are doing a satisfactory job of homeschooling.

                          ? Reich tries to identify a clash bet parents' interests and state's interests, but actually the state and the general public have accepted homeschooling. The real conflict arises from the educational establishment's inability and unwillingness to accept homeschooling as a viable educational alternative, despite all the evidence that it is.

                          ? Reich's paper lacks substantial evidence. Instead he relies on strange anecdotal evidence. For example, except for an article from The New York Times which focuses on a few individuals, he does not present evidence of isolation among homeschoolers.

                          ? Reich fails to acknowledge the extent to which "campus-based schools" work against the interests of parents, children, and the state.

                          -- Although Reich stresses young people's need for autonomy, he gives only one brief example of the enormous pressure that conventional schools put on them to conform.

                          -- Reich states that: Children have a private interest in becoming minimally autonomous because the achievement of a minimal degree of autonomy precludes the possibility that they will be, in Eamonn Callan's words, "ethically servile." Servility is a condition that implies a dutiful slavishness or submissiveness to others, an unwillingness or incapacity to make decisions or judgments for oneself. It signals an unquestioning subordination of one's own will to the ethical ideals of another person or persons. Servility is likely to be rooted in one's disposition such that the availability of new information or alternate possibilities can fail to leave any impression or shake one's habit of deference. But because children are not the property of their parents or of the state, because they possess human dignity as independent beings, they ought not be educated so as to be made servile to their caretakers. Neither parents nor the state can justly attempt to imprint indelibly upon a child a set of values and beliefs, as if it were an inheritance one should never be able to question, as if the child must always defer and be obedient. To do so would in effect render the child servile. (Pp. 22-23)

                          Many people would respond by telling Reich he should appreciate homeschooling and turn his concerns to conventional schools, especially with their increasing emphasis on state and federal standards and testing. Increasing government control of schools also undermines the development of the ability to "participate, if he or she chooses, in political dialogue."

                          Other Problems With the Paper
                          (From a Homeschooling Perspective)

                          Although the following points are less likely to be understood by many legislators and other non-homeschoolers, it is important that we homeschoolers share them whenever possible. If homeschoolers do not correct inaccurate information, we will lose important foundations of our freedoms.

                          ? Reich fails to understand that the United States through its constitution and laws did not "grant" parents the right to homeschool, did not make it illegal to homeschool, and does not have the authority to impose state-specific values and beliefs in education on its citizens. The right and freedom to homeschool comes from nature and/or God, not from the state.

                          ? Reich's paper is factually inaccurate.

                          -- There is no evidence that vast majority of homeschoolers are conservative Christians. An accurate census or survey of homeschoolers has not been conducted, partly because an accurate list of homeschoolers, by state or nationally, is not available to researchers.

                          -- Reich states, "Several states explicitly forbade homeschooling. Only since 1993 has homeschooling been legal in all fifty states." (Page 6). Both statements are false. (See information on Somerville below.)

                          -- Reich claims, "The Yoder decision inspired many homeschool advocates to press their claims in state legislatures and courts, a strategy that has yielded significant victories." (Pages 8-9) First, homeschoolers recognize the uniqueness of the situation of the Amish in Yoder and generally have not claimed it as a precedent. Second, homeschooling freedoms have not been won in the courts. Except for a few cases in which statutes were ruled too vague, cases have undermined homeschooling freedoms. (See Jane Henkel's "Recent Court Cases Examining the Constitutionality of Other States' Laws Regulating Home Schools." Available at no charge from the Wisconsin Legislative Council, P. O. Box 2536, Madison, WI 53701-2536; 608-266-1304 or at http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/185/henkel ... 90-23.html.)

                          -- There is no evidence that a significant number of families began homeschooling because of the shootings at Columbine High School. In fact, states like Washington and Wisconsin that report yearly state-wide figures showed significant decreases in normal rates of growth for that year.
                          Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                          With fingernails that shine like justice
                          And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Homeschooler's setback...

                            Again, I'm just posting the above as information on the hot homeschooling topic that revolves around Rob Reich's very public views on parent-led education.

                            I know I expressed my opinion on the guy as well. But, I am not intending any of these posts as rebuttals. There's nothing to rebutt!

                            Actually, I appreciate both Julie's and Julia's comments.

                            And, I didn't say before - but you are very right, Julia, that it is pretty much impossible to say anything is statistical fact with parent-led education at this point.
                            Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                            With fingernails that shine like justice
                            And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X