Pages

Friday, April 17, 2009

Carver, We Have a Problem

When the AEI meeting last night was over, I asked Board of Education Vice-President Pat O’ Neill in a private conversation to look at me straight in the eyes and to tell me if she thought it was right to deny some children access to providers of instruction. Her response? “I am sorry, I don’t know.” I repeated my question. She repeated her answer. I thanked her for at least having the courage to look at me straight in the eyes when she confessed her ambivalence.

So there you have it, people. We all sat through a two-hour meeting the stated objective of which was to provide comments to the BOE Policy Committee (chaired by Vice-President Pat O’ Neill) and Special Populations Committee on the draft policy for advanced and enriched instruction. Pat O’Neill conveyed her appreciation several times for the comments made by the members of the AEI Advisory Committee, but coming right out of the meeting she was still unsure whether or not it was right to deny access to education to some children.

In all fairness to Pat O’ Neill, I have to add that there was an unstated context to my question that she was aware of and she clearly did not want to be treading on Superintendent Weast’s turf. Let me tell you my story.

I have been homeschooling our younger son, now in 10th grade, since kindergarten. The COMAR regulations pertaining to homeschooling state that parents must provide instruction in a set number of subjects and agree to have their children’s portfolio reviewed by an umbrella group approved by MSDE or, for free, by the school system.

At my last county review in December, my reviewer told me that she would have to find me out of compliance with the COMAR regulations if my son received more than 20% of his instruction from providers other than mom and dad. That semester, he had taken a Chemistry class at Montgomery College and a Music Theory class for music majors at the University of Maryland at College Park (on a scholarship earned in 8th grade). Fortunately, the 3 AP classes he is self-studying for this school year, plus instruction in Latin at home with me, allowed us to pass our review. But I was warned not to have him take “too many classes” in college or elsewhere.

I never thought that a parent could be found guilty of educating her child too much, but in MCPS everything is possible. No doubt a mind is a terrible thing to weast!

In a 3-page letter to Superintendent Weast in January, I challenged his interpretation of the COMAR regulations, arguing that “provide instruction” means “provide access to instruction,” and not “plan and implement yourself a set percentage of the curriculum content” He is the one with a Ph.D. in education, and I am just a plain homeschooling mom, but I thought I supported my argument well.

To make a long story short, suffice to say that I had to bring my appeal to MSDE in February. When my letter was still unanswered after 5 weeks, I first most politely asked when I could hope to receive an answer. To shorten that part of the story too, I was later told the Department was in the process of answering it… but only after I informed MSDE that I am now represented by counsel.

So there you have it! A parent who homeschools a high-achieving student in Montgomery County has to hire a lawyer in order to defend her right to spend her own money on her son’s education while MCPS is spending taxpayers’ money right and left on we don’t often know even what! Spend, baby, spend...

No comments:

Post a Comment

If your comment does not appear in 24 hours, please send your comment directly to our e-mail address:
parentscoalitionmc AT outlook.com