Home schooling no more (in California)?
The L.A. Times has this story about a recent ruling by an appellate (state) court in California:
Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California’s home schooling families.
Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation. . . .
“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. “Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.”
Phillip Long said he believes the ruling stems from hostility against Christians and vowed to appeal to the state Supreme Court. . . .
Thoughts? Predictions?
UPDATE: A reader writes:
. . . Although I haven’t read the actual ruling, my initial reactions are that this is not a case that homeschooling advocates would want to push too far. Just on the facts presented in the story, this family is obviously struggling in ways aside from schooling – they’ve had allegations of abuse, and this is a case initially filed by a guardian ad litem (or something similar).
I support homeschooling (and was homeschooled myself a couple of years) but this is not the type of homeschooling situation I would envision as the ideal – far from it, actually. Even though one gentleman comments that he thinks the ruling stems from hostility against Christians, I would say it could very easily be construed as being a decision favoring the best interests of the children. This might be a case in which homeschooling could be demonstrably detrimental rather than beneficial for the children, which would make the case hard to win either in and I am leery of saying “homeschooling at all costs for anyone who wants to.” If it were me pursuing a case like this, I would think a good, long time before making these people the poster children for homeschoolers everywhere. In addition, while homeschooling is often seen as being a religiously-motivated, it is a fallacy that all homeschoolers are Christian. Many are not Christian, or even religious at all. From my homeschooling friends in the Twin Cities, I know of secular homeschooling co-ops here, and I’m sure that with a little research one could find similar organizations in California. Painting this as an “anti-Christian” ruling ignores the growing appeal of homeschooling outside Christian circles. It is too bad the reporter writing this story did not explore the demographics of homeschoolers a little more fully. My prediction is that this ruling will not result in homeschooling witch-hunts in California. My bet would be that criminal charges would be low on most prosecutors’ priority lists. Until there is a definitive statement from the state supreme court or some sort of legislative changes to homeschooling regulations, I would predict things will remain status quo.
And, Joe Knippenberg has more information, here.
The U.S. will be like Germany and the U.K. where they will take your children if you “dare” defy the state by homeschooling them. But hey, the European socialist states are way ahead of us on everything else, why fall behind farther in the arena of education.
Just another action by the State to claim a monopoly on formative institutions.
Apparently California’s laws are rather totalitarian here. There’s no excuse for a law that requires all children to be taught by “credentialed” teachers, as California law seems to do. Numerous educational studies have failed to find any significant benefit from teacher certification requirements.
The situation sounds fundamentally unjust to me. I took a look at the Pierce case and I can’t say that it’s entirely on point as it involved laws mandating students go to public schools, rather than to a school with a state certified teacher, but I’m sure the attorneys for the parents will try and make a Pierce-style argument. We’ll have to see what the California Supreme Court does with it.
Bad law. Break it.
Having homeschooled in California…
California law requires that all children be registered students at a school, private or public. The way homeschoolers have got around this is by registering with private schools that consist entirely of home study students. Fifteen years ago I was registered with this one while in high school:
http://www.smacademy.com/
California does not require that teachers at private schools be certified, so I’m not sure what leg this argument has to stand on.
““Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,”
I’ll be money this same judge believes parents have the right to kill their kids in the womb though!
Reminds me of something Joseph Sobran wrote:
“Freedom is coming to mean little more than the right to ask permission. “
In every other area of education, we have moved to an emphasis on assessment of academic outcomes as our means of accountability, downplaying credentialing. I wonder why it takes pride of place with home-schooled children.
I haven’t seen any studies showing that home-schooled children fail out of school at a higher rate than other children, or suffer abuse and neglect at a higher rate than other children. Some have shown them to have greater academic success, but other criticize those studies as unrepresentative or paid for by interest groups. I think it’s fair to say that home-schooled children, on average, have academic achievement no worse than those who attend school.
I’d like to see studies of the quality of parent-child relationships, teen pregnancy, and entrance and graduation from college for these students too. The ones I encounter as freshmen are head-and-shoulders above the other students.
I wonder if parents have a right to seek the best available education for their children, based on outcome studies?
“Bad law. Break it.”
Good – Now I have permission to break any law I see as bad. Now when someone tries to pass a gun ban because they are immoral, I’ll just break it because its bad law.
Thanks!
This has nothing to do with academics and everything to do with homosexual indoctrination.
God Bless,
Matt
Tim, you never know when to silence the voice that so often inclines toward saying things likely to instigate, do you?
(Fear not: I mean this at least as much as a compliment as I do an insult.)
These sorts of things are one reason I generally vote GOP – they’re better with religious freedom issues, freedom of conscience issues, freedom of assembly issues, freedom in general. I know GWB is a disaster and the party is populated with all sorts of bad people and ideas, but freedom of such things as named above is one thing that should factor into our thinking on politics.
“Tim, you never know when to silence the voice that so often inclines toward saying things likely to instigate, do you?”
Nope! Some things just need to be said.
Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! And the CA school system?! Give me a freaking break! My hubby & I have been looking at CA law schools because we have so much family support there. If we were to move we would ONLY do so if we could homeschool our daughter because of the terrible crime and nastiness of CA’s schools both public and private. Yeah, guess I will be moving somewhere else for law school.
Now I have permission to break any law I see as bad. Now when someone tries to pass a gun ban because they are immoral, I’ll just break it because its bad law.
This is partially true. We do know that the Church teaches that breaking an unjust law is acceptable, sometimes even required. In this case, I would think the Church would teach that it is acceptable but not required. Of course, breaking an unjust law should not merely be a matter of one’s own opinion, but assumes that one is acting in accordance with one’s conscience, and is attempting to think with the Church. In the case of your gun example, it is questionable whether or not you are thinking with the Church. That’s putting it mildly.
“In the case of your gun example, it is questionable whether or not you are thinking with the Church. That’s putting it mildly.”
The Church says I have a duty to protect my family and that self defense is justified.
Good enough for me.
Pretty sure you might be able to locate a more specific teaching on guns from your shepherds, Tim. You do indeed have a duty to protect your family, but you also have a duty to actually engage Church teaching and to not be lazy about it.
If you don’t believe that the media will get stories about religion correct, why do you believe that the media will get stories about the law correct? This case has very little to do with home schooling per se and far more to do with child abuse. There’s a reason that the family has been involved with the court system on and off for 20 years, and that reason is not “home schooling.”
If you’d like to read the actual published court opinion in this case, you can find it online on the California Courts website (pdf file). If you’d like to read the related and unpublished opinion, the one that gives the facts behind this case, go to this link and click the link in the second paragraph for “related case.”
Of course, if you’d like to just wallow in your ignorance about this case, then feel free to gibber on about totalitarianism, homosexual indoctrination, abortion, or religious freedom.