Some further thoughts on the Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions

Some further thoughts on the Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions

I have received some very astute comments in response to my recent post which discussed appealing the revocation of your child’s medical exemption due to the disciplinary action against the ME writing physicians. The information has caused me to rethink what I presented (and didn’t present, for reasons I don’t want to make public) and I want to share some concerns, and give some more details than I had not originally planned on discussing in public.

The law seems to have boxed you folks in with no clear legal recourse and a Hobson choice of doing the catchup vaccine schedule, or home or online school.

First, the new law does allow for appeals of denied ME’s and there is some limited process, but it seems like the statute focuses on appeals of 2021 and later ME’s filed online. However, since the revocation of disciplined doctors subsection appears in the same section which says that all ME’s in this section are subject to appeal, intended or not, it seems like the statute grants a right to appeal.

But the question is, appeal what?

A school letter rejecting an ME because the ME writing doctor had been disciplined seems to limit the appeal to showing that the doctor had not been disciplined. Well, that’s not much help to you who have or will receive the school revocation letter.

Beyond that problem, even on the merits, it is abundantly clear that the CDPH does not and will not allow exemptions based on family history alone. And even prior AE’s are not going to be accepted (my view) unless they have been worked up by a health care professional. I don’t think a statement by a family member is going to support serious consideration of an ME, on the merits, even assuming you get that far. The reason is that we already know how the CDPH looks at these things; i.e., it’s the ACIP guidelines period. Technically the appeal is to the overagency of the CDPH, and I wouldn’t expect those folks to take a position different than the CDPH’s views.

While I did previously suggest requesting an appeal, there are downsides.

The downside of a straight appeal

1. First, as indicated, you can expect the CDPH to take the position that the only grounds for appealing the revocation of a ME based on physician discipline is that the physician was in fact not disciplined. I guess we will find out the answer to that if some of you file an appeal and hear back.

2. Second, once the California authorities has your child’s ME and the name of the physician who issued it, there is nothing stopping the agency from filing a complaint with the medical board based on the ME. Of course, the physician has already been disciplined (which is the reason your grandfathered ME has been revoked), but the board can keep on going after doctors and the doctor should expect that the matter will be investigated. I am aware of doctors on probation for ME writing who are still under investigation as the board receives more complaints. That is a bad thing for the doctor(s) obviously. The fact that your ME writing physician has been put on probation for writing ME’s doesn’t mean the board can’t and won’t pursue more investigations for the same conduct, even if it occurred prior to the physician’s discipline. There is no double jeopardy like principle for new cases of the same conduct.

3. I suppose the biggest downside of a straight appeal is that as suggested you already know what the CDPH is going to say, ME’s have to be based on contraindications and precautions, and there is no institutional recognition (by the CDPH or the medical board) of family history based ME’s or most of the AE’s your child might have had.

And of course, the really big thing is that the infectious disease institutions do not even recognize the concept of a permanent ME which applies to all vaccines. The only proper analysis for considering a permanent ME is vaccine by vaccine because the institutional view is that there since there is no one common element in every scheduled vaccine, it makes no sense to give a permanent ME for all vaccines. (It’s different with temporary ME’s which can be for all vaccines for things like cancer treatment which compromises the immune system.)

No doubt some of you might be feeling that the whole process is rigged and that you can’t get a fair hearing, and in fact technically you can’t get any hearing. It’s all done on submission of paperwork, and then some secret panel makes a decision.

What About My God-Given Constitutional Rights to Send My Unvaccinated kids to School?

I get this a lot, in emails and voicemails to my office (Sorry, I don’t return any of these calls. I am not set up to answer individual questions about your child’s ME’s and it gets tiresome frankly to keep on explaining the same basic law to parents over the phone. Instead, I answer these questions through my posts.)

Sorry, these issues were decided by the California courts in the SB 277 lawsuits. There is no federal or state constitutional or statutory right or education right to send your unvaccinated child to school because of your personal beliefs on vaccines or your opinions about your freedom to decide medical treatments for your children, or based on your rights to informed consent. That does not exist. In California, like I said all these issues were litigated between 2016 and 2018 with the challenges to SB 277.

There may be some kind of general right to a medical exemption, but so far, it looks like the state gets to say who gets them and the criteria to be used. There are open legal issues about whether physicians had the discretion to write ME’s beyond ACIP. So far, two administrative judges and two superior court judges have said they don’t (or close to it in a couple of different contexts). I am working on that very issue now with the Ken Stoller appeal, and an upcoming hearing for another physician which I will discuss in a post in the next day or two.

The point being, if you are pinning your hopes on the fact that some judge is going to tell your school that it has to accept your unvaccinated child back into school, I think that is unrealistic. In general, and certainly during a pandemic, judges are not the friends of the vaccine concerned, especially when they are making arguments that have already been rejected by the California courts (and basically all courts throughout the country, most notably and recently in New York).

Two thoughts

I do have two thoughts: Circling back to the unfair process which does not appear to allow for a hearing.

If you are going to submit an appeal, Ask if there is a written description of the process, including any policy statements or written guidelines for evaluating appeals, and if there are none, ask that they (the Health and Human Services) state in writing that there are no guidelines (other than ACIP), written statements or internal guidelines by which the validity of ME’s are judged.

Also maybe ask whether the CDPH will be following SB 277 which allows for family-based ME’s under the terms of the statute and if not and why not. Ask for a detailed explanation.

Ask for the names of the officials who will be making the determination and ask for a copy of their CV’s. Maybe if they refuse to provide that information, say in the absence of CDPH compliance, you are requesting that your case be sent over to the Office Of Administrative Hearings (There are four locations, San Diego, LA, Oakland, and Sacramento). I suppose that, notwithstanding the above, mentioning failure to do so might result in a lawsuit based on a denial of your procedural due process rights to have a fair and transparent process might not be inappropriate. (and please, resist your urge to talk about your rights to do what you want with your kids and send them to school unvaccinated, or your informed consent rights or that they are violating your Nuremberg Code rights. Save all that stuff for your FB posts). This is just about a fair process by which this important medical decision should be adjudicated.

Second thought: It’s convenient isn’t it how the schools via their notification letters are ducking the issue and declining to get involved by telling you to contact the CDPH. Don’t let them get away with that. Your child’s school is the institution that is barring your child from going back to school. The school is involved, bring them back into it.

Respond to the letter. Maybe tell them you want to appeal the school’s decision and what process does the school have to do so. If they do not, tell them that you want that in writing, that they are refusing to provide you with a direct appeal of the school’s decision to bar your child from their institution. Request a meeting with the school principal to discuss the denial of your appeal right and because your child has special circumstances beyond what the CDPH may not recognize. (I’ve gotten enough emails and VMs to know that all the ME’s are unique.) Make yourself and your child’s issues known to the school administration. Be polite and respectful of course, but this is obviously extremely important to you, so don’t be shy in conveying that. You looking for face-to-face time, or Zoom time (which will be recorded).

If anything is going to change the revocation decision, I think it is going to have to come from you and the community via push back against the CDPH and against the schools. Based on the above, it is surely a long shot, and all responsible parents should have a plan B (or actually probably a plan A, because this is really the hail mary of all hail mary’s). Might there be some possible action depending on how the CDPH reacts? I suppose, but the grounds would be very very narrow and process-based, and I can’t stress enough how much I think that judges just don’t see the issues the way you all do, so it would be a big parental mistake to hope that some judge is going to come to your rescue. As stated, if there is to be a rescue/reprive, it’s going to come from your own actions and push back.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Someone posted a comment to this post which you should read. It is someone familiar with the inner workings of state and local government and the background of the Governor’s involvement in SB 714.

Here is part of it: (compliment ommited, but it’s appreciated).

Just prior to this vaccination law being implemented, Newsome was against it. As a “compromise” Pan offered that Medical Exemptions would only revoked in areas where schools had less than 90% vaccinated students, but I believe Newsome thought that was still too restrictive and pushed for children with ME’s be able to finish their school (i.e. elementary grades, etc.) EXCEPT where the ME was written by a doctor who had been officially disciplined for “matters relating to vaccination exemptions”, and at least one newspaper at the time said that this was aimed at the only doctor with a disciplinary action on vaccinations, Sears. Unfortunately that was NOT how it was written, and I called my state assemblyman, my state senator, and Governor Newsom’s office, but never received a response. I was told at the time from all my friends it was the “intent” to only target Sears, but yet hear we are with as many as 10,000 children affected!

So at this point in time, when the majority of Americans (and Californians) supporting Covid Vaccinations, it is my opinion that somehow there needs to be a representation of 10,000 children who are summarily removed from public schools and use COVID findings to our benefit:

1. Studies on COVID are stating that we would achieve “herd immunity” if 70-80% of Americans are vaccinated. Coordinate that with why would we remove a child from public school what has in excess of 90% vaccination?

2. Studies of children now being “homeschooled” during the crisis show the damage to children is very great and our children are suffering until they get back into school. SO WHY THE HELL WOULD WE THROW 10,000 KIDS INTO SUBSTANDARD SCHOOLING WHEN THEIR SCHOOLS HAVE HERD IMMUNITY FROM THE DISEASES FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERD IMMUNITY.

So Mr. Jaffe, thanks for honestly saying the solution is not legal, but is in fact political. I don’t believe the Governor knows this what was adopted, but even if he does, he won’t want the parents and relatives of 10,000 harmed children angry during a recall election.”

Thx Gary! good info.

If any of you know the Governor or someone in his inner circle, now would be an excellent time to make him/them aware of the plight facing many thousands of families this coming school year.

RAJ

26 thoughts on “Some further thoughts on the Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions

  1. Let’s see what happens when all these parents with fully vaccinated kids are now mandated to give their child a Covid Vaccine in order to attend school. Maybe there will be enough voices then to make a change. I have spoke with many of them that do not trust this vaccine due to the speedy process, political ties and side effects. The year the measles vaccine was approved and now mandated for school attendance there were only 400 deaths a year in the US and declining… Covid deaths in the U.S. over 580,000. So for those who think it won’t happen think again! All these ME’s will be useless in this case. Plan A should be start working on an exit plan out of California….

    1. Unless the law in California is Changed (and I’m
      Sure it will be eventually ) any new vaccine added to the childhood schedule required for school attendance has a personal exemption available. Therefore if the covid vaccine is eventually “required “ for school attendance in California one just needs to write a short statement saying it is against their personal beliefs and the child can in fact attend school without it.

        1. I’m curious if anyone has received a notice about their child (or a friend’s child) not being allowed to enter school this fall. We have one friend at a school in San Diego County who received a notice.

          At this point, 2 or 3 weeks from school starting, that doesn’t give families much time to obtain all lacking vaccinations even if the parent chooses to do so!

    2. Unless the law in California is Changed (and I’m
      Sure it will be eventually ) any new vaccine added to the childhood schedule required for school attendance has a personal exemption available. Therefore if the covid vaccine is eventually “required “ for school attendance in California one just needs to write a short statement saying it is against their personal beliefs and the child can in fact attend school without it.

  2. I’m wondering if people would benefit from the legal definition of “school” in the following statement: “There is no federal or state constitutional or statutory right or education right to send your unvaccinated child to school because of…” My understanding is that schools are learning institutions provided by the government (public schools) or private learning institutions that contract with the State by filing a PSA (private schools). Parents can retain their fundamental right, as established by case law, to direct their child’s education through parent directed homeschooling (which can include hiring teachers) or educating their child within private associations. Or parents can choose to enroll in a school if their child is eligible to attend school.

    1. Mr. Jaffe,
      Thank you so much for posting my comment. You are absolutely correct, it is “legally unwinnable to challenge”, and I’m sure your followers know you make a living filing legal challenges!

      What you have to ask for is “time”, based on unnecessary hardship to the children. Basically someone needs to go to the Governor representing 10,000 children with legally granted exemptions and all you want to ask for is to let them continue to stay in school “to the next level” (i.e. Junior High, High School, etc.). That these schools already have “herd immunity” to the diseases which they were granted Medical Exemptions.

      The state had the right to delay implementation. In fact, per the original bill, these ME’s were to be revoked in January, 2021, so it’s already been delayed from that date.

      I thought of two more arguments:
      3. ME’s were “legally issues” at the time they were granted, otherwise the State would not have accepted them.
      4. Schools will lose the revenues for the 10,000 students to private “home school” programs FOR NO GOOD REASON.

  3. Mr. Jaffee,
    The subscribers of this newsletter should know that they are lucky to receive your valuable input and summation of what is happening on the Medical Exemptions.

    As far as my background, I worked for 45 years in and around the County of San Diego. I was heavily involved in implementation of State and County ordinances, both as a government employee writing these laws, and as a Planning Commissioner. In my capacity, I became knowledgable about implementation of ordinances, opposing ordinance changes, and what works and what doesn’t.

    Just prior to this vaccination law being implemented, Newsome was against it. As a “compromise” Pan offered that Medical Exemptions would only revoked in areas where schools had less than 90% vaccinated students, but I believe Newsome thought that was still too restrictive and pushed for children with ME’s be able to finish their school (i.e. elementary grades, etc.) EXCEPT where the ME was written by a doctor who had been officially disciplined for “matters relating to vaccination exemptions”, and at least one newspaper at the time said that this was aimed at the only doctor with a disciplinary action on vaccinations, Sears. Unfortunately that was NOT how it was written, and I called my state assemblyman, my state senator, and Governor Newsom’s office, but never received a response. I was told at the time from all my friends it was the “intent” to only target Sears, but yet hear we are with as many as 10,000 children affected!

    So at this point in time, when the majority of Americans (and Californians) supporting Covid Vaccinations, it is my opinion that somehow there needs to be a representation of 10,000 children who are summarily removed from public schools and use COVID findings to our benefit:

    1. Studies on COVID are stating that we would achieve “herd immunity” if 70-80% of Americans are vaccinated. Coordinate that with why would we remove a child from public school what has in excess of 90% vaccination?

    2. Studies of children now being “homeschooled” during the crisis show the damage to children is very great and our children are suffering until they get back into school. SO WHY THE HELL WOULD WE THROW 10,000 KIDS INTO SUBSTANDARD SCHOOLING WHEN THEIR SCHOOLS HAVE HERD IMMUNITY FROM THE DISEASES FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERD IMMUNITY.

    So Mr. Jaffee, thanks for honestly saying the solution is not legal, but is in fact political. I don’t believe the Governor knows this what was adopted, but even if he does, he won’t want the parents and relatives of 10,000 harmed children angry during a recall election.

  4. Mr Jaffee,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to write and educate us all on this topic. I am so appreciative.

    Above you mention contacting CDPH for appeals but in SB 714 it actually says to appeal to the Secretary of Health & Human Services. That’s Dr Mark Ghaly. He has an email address that goes to his assistants. I’d share it here but it’s buried in my computer somewhere.

    Last week, I reached out to the email address that is on the appeal form letter as well as left a message on their phone line to ask questions about what the appeals process is for appeals for my doctor who was disciplined for a non – vaccine matter. No surprise, I haven’t heard from them.

    My question for you is that you mention contacting CDPH above but shouldn’t it be California Health & Human Services and specifically Dr Ghaly that we should be hounding?

    My 30 days to appeal is up Tuesday/Wednesday so I am assuming because the law states 30 days I need to get this appeal in by then, yes?

    Thanks so much!

    1. For sure follow the law, and yes the supposedly is to the Health and Human Services. In my prior post I quoted the language from the school letter. You have it obviously, but for those who haven’t received it, or missed the prior post, here it is again.

      “If you believe the physician who issued the exemption prior to 2020 has not had disciplinary action taken by the Medical Board of California or Osteopathic Medical Board of California, you may appeal the decision within 30 days of this notification of the revocation with the California Health and Human Services Agency. (emphasis added).

      Children whose medical exemptions are revoked for the reasons above must provide updated documentation to their school prior to the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. Acceptable documentation includes record of receiving required immunizations or a medical exemption issued through the California Immunization Registry Medical Exemption web site.

      If you have any questions, or need information on appealing the decision, please refer to https://www.shotsforschool.org/exemptions .”

      Honestly, I am a little unclear about this because this isn’t an appeal based on the doctor not being disciplined and the entity supposedly hearing the appeal doesn’t have anything or access to anything other than the revoked ME.
      But yes, file the appeal and make sure you have a record of it, say CMRRR or fedex/ups.

  5. Mr Jaffee,

    Thank you for your quick response to my previous question! I have other points of this law I’m trying to understand. Maybe you have these answers too.

    The law (SB714) also states the following:

    “The agency shall establish the process and guidelines for the appeals process pursuant to this section, including the process for the panel to contact the issuing physician and surgeon, parent, or guardian. The agency shall post this information on the agency’s internet website. The agency shall also establish requirements, including conflict-of-interest standards, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, that a physician and surgeon shall meet in order to qualify to serve on the panel.”

    My questions:
    1) if they (the govt) are establishing the process and guidelines for the appeals process, is there some other actual law that states my appeal wouldn’t “count” automatically to the school if it is outside that process and guidelines and standards that they, the government have set? I’m just wondering if the school can push back and say it’s outside the guidelines so we can’t even keep your child in school until a verdict is reached because it doesn’t follow the appeal process.

    2) you mention above appealing to the school but what if it’s a private school. Can’t they just then decide to come up with some silly reason to kick you out if they want to be extreme about it and not want the hassle nor liability?

    3. If a law was created that overreaches the initial intent of the law, can that become a class action lawsuit for those impacted by it? Like in this case, for those in schools with 98% vaccination rates and/or doctors disciplined for non vaccine matters.

    I’m sorry if you’ve already answered these questions somewhere else.

    In regards to Newsom – Sadly, if you look at Newsom’s track record for parents this year, it’s pretty abysmal. He ignored many/most California parents who wanted to provide a proper education to their children (while making sure his own children were well educated!) and instead listened to special interest groups like the teachers union. I don’t know if 10k parents is something he would even care about. The Florida governor, even the NY governor made sure public school was open bypassing the teachers, Newsom didn’t. 🙁

    Thank you!

  6. Thank you, again, for all your hard word in fighting for medical freedom.

    Last night I was watching an interview and it was about Constitutional Court, several people have gone that route and were successful.

    Question, could parents and college students (referring back to your flu shot / college student case) go through Constitutional courts? From what I am aware of, the mass do not even know of this court and many attorneys shy away from it.

    1. Sorry, but I don’t know what a constitutional court is. If it’s some kind of right wing people’s court then what I can tell you is that there are only two court systems a California school will listen to and comply with orders from and they be the State Court system (Superior courts are the courts with general jurisdiction) and the federal courts. Any “order” for anything else might be good for hanging in your home as decoration but that’s about it.

  7. Gary maybe we need this as a topic of discussion for the Recall folks and/or this mode running to replace the Gov?? Get it to Mr Cox or Jenner somehow to voice their opinion. The only way to get eyes on this for the 10k and don’t forget the few others that are still battling w their Dr whose license was revoked(Stoller) are still looking for answers.

  8. Hi Rick,

    I am trying to figure this out like everyone else. When you write:

    “ There may be some kind of general right to a medical exemption, but so far, it looks like the state gets to say who gets them and the criteria to be used. There are open legal issues about whether physicians had the discretion to write ME’s beyond ACIP. So far, two administrative judges and two superior court judges have said they don’t (or close to it in a couple of different contexts). I am working on that very issue now with the Ken Stoller appeal, and an upcoming hearing for another physician which I will discuss in a post in the next day or two.”

    One thing to remember is sb276 and sb714 were about redefining the medical exemptions. So it’s not just “parents want the right to send their unvaccinated kids to school”… it’s “should parents of children with medical concerns acknowledged in writing from a licensed physician ( including vaccine injuries) be excluded from school based on their incomplete vaccination status?” Sb277 did allow for family medical history and granted in writing discretion to doctors.

    I guess my biggest concern is simple: if a public health intervention or prophylaxis can cause death, or cause serious harm to an individual, can a state require it in any context..? That to me just sounds very wrong and an area that we could argue. When an industry poisons the water they get sued, they get forced to clean it up. I don’t see how it could be mandated by the state to drink the water. There has got to be a way to fight this. Risk is not equally spread out to all people, some people are genetically predisposed to more serious reactions and this has been documented for decades and decades.

    1. Under SB 277 ME’s were unreviewable by the state authorities or schools. Because of what was perceived by those same authorities as the abuse of that by a dozen or two doctors (most of which have been disciplined or face disciplinary charges) the law was changed. One of the ways it was changed was that although those exemptions would be permitted to continue, ie grandfathered if the doc was disciplined they were revoked. That was the trade-off. In earlier versions (SB 276) grandfathered ME’s had to be filed like the rest of new ME’s. That was eliminated.
      And under the new law, docs are extremely disincentivized to write them and they don’t. Permanent ME’s in California are largely over and will be mostly over in the next six months to a year, except for a handful written by a doc here and there who didn’t write many. But if you got your ME by word of mouth on some social medial site, chances are that doc has or will be disciplined, unless something radically changes.
      Also, mandatory vaccination has been uphelp continuously in every case since Jacobson and was upheld in California in three or four cases dealing with challenges to SB 277. You don’t like it or agree with it, but it is the law and lower courts are bound to follow the law. It doesn’t matter what a parent thinks are the risks to his/her child. PUblic health policy is made by public health officials with the input of recognized experts. Again, you may not like it or agree with it.
      The practicality of it, as I said is that these permanent ME’s from all shots is just over for most. Some might have a half school year or a school year, maybe longer, they are going away, and parents are going to have to choose another alternative, be that home school, online school for older children, starting the catch-up schedule, or moving out of state to someplace that has a religious or PBE. This has been coming now for 2 years.

      1. Pan claimed there were fraudulent exemptions and used that at his ammo for the new bill, but had no actual evidence. A medical exemption based on family medical history is by definition not fraudulent based on the law at the time, SB 277. But he argued it was, even though it was allowed under SB 277.

        Jacobson v Massachusetts still allowed for exceptions for children: “children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician that they are unfit subjects for vaccination.” § 139.

        And regarding adults, it said they had to forfeit five dollars if they refuse vaccination.

        Jacobson is a good example, because decades later contraindications were established and people with history of eczema or present eczema are contraindicated to smallpox vaccination. But it wasn’t known at the time of the law.

        The law isn’t always right.

        The point being, contraindications may come way after certain vaccines are used and recommended. And science and our understanding is constantly evolving. In some cases, contraindications are removed with no explanation: for example, seizures and inconsolable crying were a CDC/ACIP contraindications for DTAP vaccine up until a few years ago, and then just removed.

        Bottom line: Every medical exemption written under SB 277 was technically lawful, because the law allowed for family medical history. Retroactively making them invalid based on a new definition, sounds very unlawful to me.

        Are you taking this to court to fight this?

        1. Courtney, thanks for your information. I agree that the Medical Exemptions were legal and met the standards at the time they were issued. To further add insult to injury, I’ve been in contact with 3 physicians who have issued ME’s and it appears that Pan “may” have got the state to initiate actions against ALL physicians who had initiated Medical Exemptions, and he appears to be applying current regulations “retroactively” as Courtney has pointed out above. I believe that this puts any “appeal” in checkmate.

          I still take the point that the only chance we have is somehow getting the attention of Governor Newsome and calling attention to the “hardship” that as many as 10,000 children who have JUST been able to get back into school, now facing the trauma of being thrown back to homeschooling at a time when studies are showing that our students have suffered, academically and emotionally while held out of school.

          As Mr. Jaffe had asked before, does anyone out there have any connection with Governor Newsome??

          Is there any data source to show how many students are having their ME’s revoked and how can we reach them??

          1. Gary I agree with you, the challenge is Newsome is treating this and everything now with a red or blue spin. No matter what side your on, he and all media see this “choice” as a red political line.

            You mentioned being in the political arena for years, I’m assuming most parents here don’t have those type of political profiles to get a word in his ear.

            Media is key in my opinion. There has to be more visible attention on tv, news to drive this parental choice.

  9. Mr Jaffe,

    Above you write “Maybe if they refuse to provide that information, say in the absence of CDPH compliance…” in regards to “your case be sent over to the Office Of Administrative Hearings.”

    Can you explain what the CDPH compliance is? I just want to understand this wording if I use it in my appeal.

    Thank you so much!

  10. I’d like to comments regarding the following part of your blog:
    2. Studies of children now being “homeschooled” during the crisis show the damage to children is very great and our children are suffering until they get back into school. SO WHY THE HELL WOULD WE THROW 10,000 KIDS INTO SUBSTANDARD SCHOOLING …

    First of all, what study are you referring to?
    Second, homeschooling may be ‘substandard’ when done by unprepared, unwilling parents forced into it by the pandemics. From my experience of a veteran homeschooling mother meeting hundreds of homeschooling families over the years, homeschooling it better than a traditional school in every respect.
    The damage to the children results mostly for lack of opportunities to socialize with others, and that applies to all children, regardless of their schooling status.

    1. In response to Marta Calvo, the comment you are criticizing came from me. In response I’d say that every major news station has shared studies of the negative impacts which our children have experienced, both academically and emotionally. Thesed studies are often cited by the public when demanding that schools be re-opened. These covid home schooled are the very definition of your “unprepared and unwilling families” forced into the situation by the pandemic. I’m not going to research the “specific studies” because they are so prevalent.

      I’d argue that if as many as 10,000 children are dumped out of public schools unceremoniously this fall, they will also meet that definition of “unwilling and unprepared” parents, otherwise we wouldn’t be fighting so hard to stop this action. I agree, with parents willing and prepared homeschooling can be a better experience but many (if not most) of these children have both parents working and this is a terrific hardship.

      I don’t know what you are trying to argue, that the children will somehow be “better off” being homeschooled? That doesn’t help the argument of so many parents who are being blindsided by this coming action. Thanks to Mr. Jaffe my family has been made aware of the upcoming action, our doctor is on the list Mr. Jaffe has acquired from the State, yet we have not received word one from our school and that’s only 4 months until the next semester. This us little time to appeal or prepare for this transition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *