Wednesday, January 18, 2006

New Perspective on the SB 2514

Long overdue update: SB 2514 died in committee.
From H.S., a MS legislative committee volunteer:
I realize that this particular Mandatory Testing bill will probably not go anywhere (though what I've not yet figured out is how fast it might get anywhere if it does pass the Senate education committee this week or something). But I went and double checked anyway, and indeed, not providing "education as required by law" is considered neglect; hence, should the law pass, then in addition to registering with the SAO, you will be liable for neglect if you do not do the mandatory testing. This is smelling more and more like a teacher's union thing, isn't it - but that means trying to fight it means homeschoolers fighting teachers...

i) An absence may be excused when it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the superintendent of the school district, or his designee, that conditions are sufficient to warrant the compulsory-school-age child's nonattendance. However, no absences shall be excused by the school district superintendent, or his designee, when any student suspensions or expulsions circumvent the intent and spirit of the compulsory attendance law.
(5) Any parent, guardian or custodian of a compulsory-school-age child subject to this section who refuses or willfully fails to perform any of the duties imposed upon him or her under this section or who intentionally falsifies any information required to be contained in a certificate of enrollment, shall be guilty of contributing to the neglect of a child and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with Section 97-5-39.

§ 43-21-105. Definitions.
(l) "Neglected child" means a child:
(i) Whose parent, guardian or custodian or any person responsible for his care or support, neglects or refuses, when able so to do, to provide for him proper and necessary care or support, or education as required by law, or medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his well-being; provided, however, a parent who withholds medical treatment from any child who in good faith is under treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to be neglectful under any provision of this chapter; or
(ii) Who is otherwise without proper care, custody, supervision or support; or
(iii) Who, for any reason, lacks the special care made necessary for him by reason of his mental condition, whether said mental condition be mentally retarded or mentally ill; or
(iv) Who, for any reason, lacks the care necessary for his health, morals or well-being.
I hadn't thought of that.

No comments: