California warns home schoolers

Washington Times ^ | 8/21/02 | Ellen Sorokin

[kattracks]

School officials in California are warning parents that they cannot educate their children at home unless they obtain professional teaching credentials.

Without the proper credentials, parents no longer can file required paperwork that would authorize them to home school their children, states a memo issued by the state Department of Education. As a result, those children not attending public schools would be considered "truant" by local school districts.

[secretagent]

I get so angry at the smug assumption of power in these twits!

[goody2shooz]

This article really doesn't tell anything!

Will the State of California lower the boom on parents who home teach? Will they be arrested and charged, maybe even go to jail if found guilty, or will the authorities turn a blind eye to home teaching?

Anybody willing to start a pool betting on the date the first perp is arrested?

[toenail]

"I get so angry at the smug assumption of power in these twits!"

Schoolyard bullies who are so afraid of intelligence that they'll use guns and cages to prevent it. Their desparation is pathetic.

[secretagent]

Agree!

[Crazymonarch]

Forwards Forwards the bright trumpets flare

Forwards Forwards youth knows no dangers

Amerika will shine brightly etc....kALIFORNIA uBER aLLES.

[amstaff1]

I believe I was reading just last week that a great many of Kalifornia's public school teachers are not properly credentialed themselves. Sorry, Kalifornia sucks in to many ways to mention, this being just one of them.

[toenail]

Have you ever listened to any of John Taylor Gatto's speeches? I don't think this was his best speech, but I really liked Bianca, You Animal, Shut Up! ("Gatto's Keynote address at the 20th Anniversary Conference of Growing Without Schooling. A discussion of humiliation. The dramatic environment of class-based schooling, and the common need to take action against the structure of forced schooling.")

The forced schooling crowd is pathetic, and they need to be treated as the whiny, snivelly, contemptible, pathetic little ass leeches they are.

[Cindy]

This is a great site: HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION (click here)

[brat]

Please join the Parent's protest of the NEA...keep your kids home from school on 911! Spread the word!~

[spetznaz]

School officials in California are warning parents that they cannot educate their children at home unless they obtain professional teaching credentials.

PING-A-LING-A-LING!. This is totally annoying. Not only does the Cali school system advocate teaching practices that are simply detrimental to young'uns but at the same time they lash out at those who decide to teach their kids at home (when stats show that homeschooled kids perform better than those in public school)?

This is completely wrong and i wish pressure could be applied to negate this socially attritive legislation!

There must be a way to stop this (after all this is America .....people have the power to stop such BS legislation). Someone please restore my faith in the power of concerted group effort against oppresive/suppresive/repressive forces!

With all seriousness tell me they cannot do what it seems they are trying to do.

(Jaded alert)

[Bullish]

Gird your loins for a hell of a fight, people. The lines are now drawn. Your kids attending their schools means more money to them. That's what this is all about. They couldn't care less about your children, or their education. They want to indoctrinate your kids and turn them against you. They must be defeated, everything depends on it.

[MIsunshine]

"...the Parent's protest of the NEA...keep your kids home from school on 911!"

What a good idea! Is this an organized grass roots protest? I don't have kids in school anymore, but sure will pass this around the neighborhood to those with kids in public schools.

[Conservative4Ever]

Ha yes..the thumb screws are now being applied. Those Freepers who reside in CA...who have children who are home schooled...now is the time to take a stand. CA is becoming a real sucky place to live.

Red

[handk]

It's the marriage license stupid!

License. The permission by competent authority ("by the authority vested in me by the State of California, I hereby pronounce you man and wife") to do an act, which without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at p. 829].

When the "State" (as in "California") creates a legal partnership (a/k/a "marriage", via a "marriage license granted by the State) it becomes, in effect, an "equitable interest"; an equitable interest entitled to control of the "profits" of such a partnership. And what are the "profits" of such a partnership?

Children.

The marriage license is the nexus, the "connection"; it is the legal document that grants the power to the State to dictate and control all children under it's jurisdiction.

Remember, the "creator" is always senior to its "creations".

If you are married, with a "marriage license", you are a "creature", a "creation", and your "union" (partnership) is "subject to" to the whims of the creator (the "State").

And this is why parents, with "marriage licenses", suffer under "mandatory public school attendance."

The "creator" is simply asserting control over it's property, it's "profits" (children), from it's statutory "creations" (partnerships/marriages).

[madfly]

ping

[Lion Den Dan]

Bump

[American in Israel]

With the total incompetence of the public school system, just where are these bean counters going to find someone smart enough to enforce this LAW created by fiat, without representation? This BOZO has no more right to create laws than the village idiot sweeping streets.

Suddenly he announces a major change in what HE will accept as legal. Show me the legislature, the vote, the paper trail that makes this a real law an not just some dictation of a counter clerk at the dmv.

The crime here is that the California legislature is pretending that this law any credence at all.

[TxBec]

Homeschool bump

[Khepera]

HSLDA Responds to California Superintendent of Public Instruction


Many private schools in California have received a letter from Delaine Eastin, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, explaining certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and pursuant to the law, private school students and other eligible private school personnel are entitled to certain benefits.


However, the troubling aspect of the letter pertains to a paragraph where Ms. Eastin opines that home schooling does not qualify as private education in California. She defines home schooling as "a situation where non-credentialed parents teach their own children exclusively, at home, whether using a correspondence course or other types of courses…" She further indicates that a parent's filing of the private school affidavit does not make the private school legal. She cites the court cases People v. Turner and In re Shinn.


First, we would advise any private school not to participate, nor encourage their students to participate and receive government benefits or funds for educational purposes. With money and/or benefits will come control. These controls inevitably limit the freedom that has made home education a successful educational movement.


Secondly, the aspect of the letter alleging that home educating parents must be certified is not a new argument. Since 1993, the California Department of Education (CDE) in much of its communication with individuals inquiring about home education, has stated that home education can be accomplished legally only through the tutorial provision, which is Education Code § 48224. This provision requires that the teacher be certified in the grade level being taught. Obviously, most home educators are not certified and if this were truly the law, it would eliminate most home schooling in California.


The CDE incorrectly bases its position on the two cases mentioned above. In the Shinn case, the court applied the private school exemption to the specific situation in question to determine whether the family who claimed to have established a private school in their home was in compliance with the private school law. The court determined the family was not in compliance because the Shinns weren't actually teaching their children the required subjects. The children were teaching themselves using a correspondence course. So the Shinn case actually supports our position that home education is legal through the private school exemption.


The Turner case was decided by a Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Department in 1953. The Superior Court Appellate Department applied the "reasonableness" test and concluded that it wasn't reasonable for the state to have to supervise the many small private schools across California. There are three problems with this decision. First, the court was wrong in making the assumption that the state actually supervises private schools. The state has no authority, nor does any local school district have any authority to supervise private schools. Secondly, the affidavit filing requirement pursuant to § 33190 of the Education Code was not in existence when these cases were decided. The private school affidavit is the annual filing requirement for private schools satisfies any concerns about private school oversight being too burdensome for the state. Finally, in 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Sherbert v. Verner which established that whenever there is a violation of an individual's fundamental right (such as parents' right to educate their children, or the right to free exercise of religion), the compelling state interest/least restrictive balancing test must be applied, rather than the reasonable relationship test.


What this means now is if a home schooling parent was prosecuted for truancy because they were not a certified teacher, the prosecution (the school district) would have to prove that teacher certification is essential to protecting the governmental interest in education. They would have to demonstrate that certification is essential for literacy and self-sufficiency. Quite frankly, that would be impossible in light of the number of illiterates attending and graduating from public school, all taught by certified teachers. Secondly, they would have to demonstrate that certification is the least restrictive way to achieve literacy and self-sufficiency for home educating parents. This would be impossible in light of the fact that 49 other states have less of a qualification requirement than teacher certification and most home schooled students are doing very well. The bottom line is the Turner case no longer has any validity in California.


What does this mean for the future of home education in California? It seems that the CDE is trying to increase the pressure on school districts to deny parents their right to teach their children at home using the private school exemption. We urge our members to continue to operate just as you are.


If you are an HSLDA member and have any problems, let us know immediately. Don't forget to request your private school affidavit in August or early September and file it between October 1st and October 15th. Request the affidavit from the County Office of Education in writing on your private school's letterhead. DO NOT call or go to your County Office of Education in person. If you cannot obtain the affidavit, please call our office.