Thread: NE EDU bill strips parental rights

LB463 Ashford stripping parental rights via educational and court system.

Lawmakers discuss truancy measure
http://www.journalstar.com/news/unicame ... 46fcc.html

Nebraskans Advisory Group, P O Box 12052, Omaha, Ne 68112-0052
402-991-5015 www.nebraskansadvisorygroup.org
FUNNY HOW Sen. BRAD ASHFORD WANTS LAWS/POLICIES ENFORCED CONSISTENTLY EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!"
Sen Ashford is an attorney - maybe he is trying to throw some business to his attorney friends - because parents will HAVE to hire an attorney.

LB463 - This bill is one vote session from being passed. You need to address YOUR email and phone calls to YOUR state senator. Contact information for each senator can be found at www.nebraskalegislature.gov

Sample letter: Dear Senator, Please vote AGAINST LB463. This bill is NOT the answer to student truancy issues. This bill WILL place responsible parents in the hands of HHS and other Nebraska state agencies unnecessarily and will over-burden the county attorney's office.
This bill WILL strip parents of their rights while criminalizing them causing the parents a financial burden by hiring an attorney. Again, VOTE NO on LB463. Thank you for your consideration, YOUR NAME and address.

SOME QUICK notes about Sen Brad Ashford's interview on Scott Voorhees Show this morning on KFAB 1110 AM Radio:
*23,000 cases of truancy cases in OPS. Educators would be instructed by law to report to the county attorney any child/parents who have 20 unexcused absences NOT approved by the school district. - OVERBURDENING our county atty's office - unbelievable! Tardies are counted as whole days missed. Sick days MUST be accompanied by a doctor's note - even if your child has just a cough/fever YOU NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT to keep your kid at home WITHOUT a doctor's note. Asasford says so far this is up to the school district to approve. They must approve any reason a parent withholds them from school - forcing the parents to hire an attorney or homeschool them. "let school district board and superintendent set the policy, inform the parents and then ENFORCE the policy with consistency" Brad Ashford.

LANGUAGE OF BILL excerpts that are of particular concern:

PAGE 22:
1 Sec. 6. Section 79-209, Revised Statutes Cumulative
2 Supplement, 2010, is amended to read:
3 79-209 In all school districts in this state, any
4 superintendent, principal, teacher, or member of the school board who
5 knows of any violation of section 79-201 on the part of any child of
6 school age, his or her parent, the person in actual or legal control
7 of such child, or any other person shall within three days report
8 such violation to the attendance officer of the school, who shall
9 investigate the case. When of his or her personal knowledge, by
10 report or complaint from any resident of the district, or by report
11 or complaint as provided in this section, the attendance officer
12 believes that any child is unlawfully absent from school, the
13 attendance officer shall immediately investigate.
14 All school districts shall have a written policy on
15 excessive absenteeism developed in collaboration with the county
16 attorney of the county in which the principal office of the school
17 district is located. The policy shall include a provision indicating
18 how the school district and the county attorney will handle cases in
19 which excessive absences are due to documented serious illness, and
20 shall state the number of absences or the hourly equivalent upon the
21 occurrence of which the school shall render all services in its power
22 to compel such child to attend some public, private, denominational,
23 or parochial school, which the person having control of the child
24 shall designate, in an attempt to address the problem of excessive
25 absenteeism. The number of absences in the policy shall not exceed


PAGE 23:
1 five days per quarter or the hourly equivalent. School districts may
2 use excused and unexcused absences for purposes of the policy. Such
3 services shall include, but need not be limited to:
4 (1) One or more meetings between a school attendance
5 officer, school social worker or the school principal or a member of
6 the school administrative staff designated by the school
7 administration if such school does not have a school social worker,
8 the child's parent or guardian, and the child, if necessary, to
9 report and to attempt to solve the problem of excessive absenteeism;
10 (2) Educational counseling to determine whether
11 curriculum changes, including, but not limited to, enrolling the
12 child in an alternative education program that meets the specific
13 educational and behavioral needs of the child, would help solve the
14 problem of excessive absenteeism;
15 (3) Educational evaluation, which may include a
16 psychological evaluation, to assist in determining the specific
17 condition, if any, contributing to the problem of excessive
18 absenteeism, supplemented by specific efforts by the school to help
19 remedy any condition diagnosed; and
20 (4) Investigation of the problem of excessive absenteeism
21 by the school social worker, or if such school does not have a school
22 social worker, by the school principal or a member of the school
23 administrative staff designated by the school administration, to
24 identify conditions which may be contributing to the problem. If
25 services for the child and his or her family are determined to be
LB 463 LB 463

I have been following this issue very closely since it's introduction in January, I am only sorry that I totally missed the framework for this expansion when last years LB 800 (the new tougher truancy law) passed. This bill has serious implications for families and parental rights. I am working hard to defeat this bill with a small but passionate grass roots group, visit us and see what we're thinking about this legislation at:

http://millardparentsociety.blogspot.com/

Earlier this week we meet with Ashford and his LA, Stacy, in Lincoln and we were told by his LA that under our state's compulsory education law parents have never had a right to excuse their child from school for any reason, that schools have always had total authority over whether absences are excused or not. It may be that the compulsory education law could be interpreted that way, but historical precedence does not lend support to her argument. The law until last year with the passage of LB 800 was not interpreted or implemented in that way. The traditional interpretation accepted by school districts and county attorney's for decades was that if the school was in contact with parents related to school absences and the students whereabouts were known and excused by parents, then those absences were excused absences.

The truancy law passed last year required that the county attorney become involved in all cases in which a student was absent twenty days regardless of whether or not the purposes for those absences were known and excused by parents or schools. It also authorized schools to intervene aggressively with students who was were five days absent whether the absences were excused or not.

This change has lead to a significantly more aggressive truancy policy that has a fundamental effect on the culture of parenting and the traditional relationship between schools and parents by redefining the role of parents in making ordinary decisions related to school absences. What was generally accepted as a primary role and responsibility of parents has become the primary role and responsibility of school administrators, social workers, and judges.

There are serious and dangerous implications for our communities and society if the role of parents is systematically diminished as it has been by this law. We must find a way to preserve the traditional relationship between schools and families by preserving the distinction between excused and unexcused absences.

If a child has been absent from school without excuse and his whereabouts are unknown by those responsible for his care and well being then certainly the schools and parents should take a proactive role in correcting the behavior and thus preventing that child from falling behind in school or getting into trouble. We have proposed to our legislature that the distinction between excused and unexcused absence be added to LB 463 and that the natural rights of parents and their well adjusted happy and successful children be protected by the law rather than harassed and intimidated.

Listen to a conversation about this bill with Scott Voorhees today: http://www.kfab.com/cc-common/podcast/s ... ttVoorhees

Stephanie - Thank you so much for your posting and efforts to oppose LB800 and LB463. I heard you on the Scott Voorhees Show and you represented the citizens/parent's side very well.

Sen Ashford's Socialist mentality and agenda has reared its ugly head on many issues and his total disdain towards the taxpaying citizen is absolutely frightening. Unfortunately, he ran unopposed and was reelected in 2010. Hopefully, citizens in D20 will find a competent conservative to run in the next election.

I will post your response on my website and FB page along with the link to your group. Again, thank you for all of your hard work. Susan