Posted on 03/06/2008 1:31:14 PM PST by fweingart
A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal has determined parents in that state have no legal right to home school. A Christian attorney in Sacramento says unless the ruling is reversed, literally thousands of students in the Golden State will be subject to criminal sanctions. (click here for special webcast starting at 2 p.m. CST)
California Justice H. Walter Croskey has stated in an opinion that "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." The opinion was issued in the case of one family who enrolled their daughter in Sunland Christian School, a private home-schooling program based in Sylmar.
The ruling reverses an earlier opinion from a Superior Court that found that "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home." But in his reversal, Croskey refers to the "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."
Brad Dacus, president of the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute, calls the scope of the decision "breathtaking."
"It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools," he explains.
According to Dacus, the ruling goes against prior court decisions. "Case law in federal court and by the U.S. Supreme Court [has] already recognized that parents have a fundamental right over the education of their children," he points out. "And in fact, the lower-court judge in this decision ... actually ruled that these parents had a constitutional right to home school their children. But it was reversed by this three-judge panel in this appellate court."
Dacus says an appeal has already been filed by his firm on the school's behalf. "We're going to try to have this decision non-published and specifically tabled until a final determination by the State Supreme Court," he says. And if the decision is not reversed, says the attorney, "more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions."
For the time being, the decision affects four counties in the Los Angeles metro area. Sunland Christian School, says the Pacific Justice Institute, has been in full compliance with the requirements of California law for more than 20 years.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the only people left in California are the bums on the streets and the bums in government.
there’s alot of things what are not being talked about
for instance why doesn’t the media go to san frans pareades and tape the weirdo’s danicing around with next to nothning on, or nothing on in the street or even having oral sex in public when the police are watching
if they showed the country these things the American people would be outraged but of course the libs and gays try to hide their acts
said it before I would lose no sleep if MA,NY, NJ, VT,RI,CT all succeeded from the union and joined with quebec
the dems would never run this country again plus we can send them all our illegals seeing as they are welcome and they can have their queers marriages tooafter all those states are something else, and every republican could move south where won’t be bothered by their liberal nanny views no more
I have read the whole case now and HSLDA is very right to be worried. In fact, the case is more dangerous than I had thought when I was talking to you earlier. The most dangerous part of this case is where the judge discusses favorably a 1950’s era California Court of Appeals case which indicated that homeschools could not be treated as valid private schools under state law. This is very dangerous because CA does not have a seperate homeschooling section (only a very burdensome home tutor section which requires that the home tutors be credentialed) and the vast majority of homeschools in CA are registered as private schools. Here is the relevant section from this case discussing the Turner case.
“Additionally, the Turner court rejected, and noted that courts in other states had also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at home come within the
private full-time day school exemption in then-section 16624 (now section 48222). The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home
instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home.”
I find it hard to understand some in the cities. I was watching cops the other day and had to put it on subtitles
for instance it was like
she gone
I not do that
I int going there
he not there
why can’t they speak plural instead of singular ?
these poeple will never get a job and they had the nerve to say Crosby was wrong and he’s just old
Don’t they understand that every time they speak they just prove themselves as thick
That's because the family never registered themselves as a private school, but tried to use Sunland Christian School as the supposed school ("enrolled" in Sunland Christian School). Since the children didn't actually attend the Sunland Christian School, and the parents never registered their own place as a school, the mother was not covered under either California Educational Code § 48222 ("Attendance in private school") for either place. Also, the court went through the other exemptions:
As I understand it and read the opinion, there's nothing that says there would have been a problem if the mother had registered the home as a private school, like tens of thousands of other homeschoolers do.
Should that red tape paperwork bureaucracy be required? Maybe not. But it's the current law and compared with many registrations, it doesn't seem horribly onerous.
If they want to get the law changed so registration isn't required, then they should do so...but as it stands, the requirement is to register the homeschool as a legal "private school"--which is defined by these requirements:
This ruling is asinine.
I remember also the commentary that the law was “merely” to ensure quality of education and of course (of COURSE) child safety. Amazingly, someone in THIS forum also said that. Nice try.
First of all, these are issues that the teacher’s unions gave up any right to speak about long ago. Long ago. Public education is a train wreck of bad math, bad ideology, semi-socialist indoctrination, oversexualization of youth, mockery of Founding Fathers (and mockery also seen in this court ruling), as well as a very BAD horizontal peer oriented learning that is horrid for many kids. And of course those of us who’re Christians recoil in terror from what this is REALLY about.
The is more than one way to skin a cat: Unable to push this through via the issue of “quality”—it was time to sneak in through the back door for social advocacy.
First, this is a job creations program for teachers. It is really that simple. California has taken the lead in making examples out of this kind of legislation. The next issue is one of sociolization and agenda politics from the Left.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. And in this case, since legislation to force homeschoolers to promote a particular ideology about family (say, gay and gender issues, as just one example) failed, or force what are primarily Christian parents to see things from a secular viewpoint on issues ranging from sex education to world politics and neo-Marxian economics failed, the activists needed a less direct, back door route. While not absolutely sure in this case, phony charges of child abuse against homeschoolers have been shown to be legion and unrelenting. And they are ever-so-easy to make. At other times in other states the courts USED to say things to the effect that it did not “come to their notice” that child abuse events, however unfortunate, mean that the courts should assume that the State now should have primary responsibility for child-rearing over the best intentions of parents. IE—parents are the best in the business for teaching the kids and have their best interests at heart.
The creation of these “teaching credentials” requirements, which most parent don’t have and have little time to obtain and no doubt will have to follow a politically correct format, basically shut the door (for now) on homeschooling for most parents in the State of California. Teacher certification have never been proven by any relevant objective study to make any improvement in the education of children at any level. But don’t tell that to the teachers’ unions of California or the NEA. They now have more laws to pass, more agenda to push, and more jobs to fill.
For those of you homeschoolers (many, I imagine) who’re wondering what to do, don’t have time to piddle with the blarny about “credentials”, and are tired of the Californication of laws and liberal activism peeping in on you from all social angles: Flee. Get out. This fight is over. Castro Street has won. We know this now. You’re cooked, even IF this law is temporarily successfully faught we know this is not the end in Cally.
In South Carolina the fitht was a decade to make homeschooling legal with some provisions. But it is secure here thanks to a more user friendly environment.
California now joins much of Europe in effectively saying that children are to be wards of the state. Mom and Dad’s roles are apparently that of egg and sperm donor only.
Actually, it's this family and the HSLDA that are damaging homeschooling.
Please, let me know what your understanding is...
On what grounds do you think the decision was wrong--please cite specifically the part where the judge ruled contrary to law.
Did the family follow the law? Did they register as a private school?
What exemption should they have fallen under--and if it's the private school one, then where's their registration?
Please cite the portion of the California Education Code that requires a homeschooler to have teaching credentials if he registers as a private school.
It's not there.
This family didn't register as a private school, didn't file an affidavit of attendance, etc., and therefore don't qualify for the private school exemption (that homeschoolers get).
Yes, by pushing this idea that Sections 33190 and 48222 don't protect homeschoolers, this family and the HSLDA are building an argument against California homeschoolers.
Especially when it's interpreted by the asses sitting on Californicate benches.
The US is a defacto totalitarian regime ruled by appointees to our myriad of courts and by the liberal pansies we keep electing to represent us.
Read the top of page 9 where the judge discusses the Turner case. He quotes favorably where it says that homeschoolers do not qualify under the private school exception. This is why HSLDA is worried and it is very serious concern. Please go back and read this part of the case again. Here is the most dangerous part of the case since the judge ends his decision by stongly implying that is still good law. Please read this quote carefully because it indicates that homeschools may not register as private schools under any circumstance.
“Additionally, the Turner court rejected, and noted that courts in other states had also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at home come within the private full-time day school exemption in then-section 16624 (now section 48222). The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home.”
I agree. But...the argument made in the opinion does not address the general case, and the court built its decision on this specific case from some relevant portions of other cases--but didn't truly consider the broader question, as I read it.
A lot of cases are decided on facts that are distinguishable but end up setting precedent that is used to dramatically change the law. When the next case comes along, the court relies on the problematic language in the first case rather looking at the the facts which were distinguishable.
And you are right on target here. I appreciate your clear thought on this topic in place of knee-jerking. :-)
I'm not claiming there's no potential danger in the opinion--what I'm claiming is that by giving credence to the ideas within, the argument for homeschooling is weakened. What should be pointed out is that there are now other differences that make the Turner reasoning irrelevant (moot?). For example, if a parent is credentialed, then no affidavit would be required if the parent operated under EC 48224 rather than EC 48222. Also, note that the background check requirements mention that it applies to PAID teachers only.
It's time for the legislative branch to step up and make it clear that homeschooling is protected, but that doesn't mean we should tear down the limited protections we have, just to demonstrate that need.
But there is a substantive difference. If the parent/school isn't certified, an affidavit must be filed to ensure compliance. With certification, there's no need for the affidavit, if the tutor exemption is used.
Yes, the court argued in a way that can be used against homeschooling, but it didn't rule that it's unlawful.
Perhaps if the family had claimed the Private School Exemption (EC 48222) for themselves (filing an affidavit and complying with the other requirements) instead of claiming Sunland Christian School as the relevant "private school," the court would have addressed this question directly. But as it stands, that is not what happened.
I agree with you that there is a substantive difference by the appeals court decision favorably quotes that languagge from Turner which said that there is not one. The courts conclusion is not fleshed out since it simply ruled that there is no constitutional right to homeschool and then remanded the case for legal and factual findings. However, the court did did make another statement near the end of the case which seemed to incorporate Turner’s finding by reference. Here is that quote which you can find on the top of page 11.
“The Legislature has not amended the substantive aspects of the compulsory education statutes that were analyzed in Turner and Shinn. Like those courts, we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,” which Article IX, section 1 of our Constitution states is “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.””
Correction - ...but the appeals court decision favorably quotes...
I do NOT know California Law in that regard. However what I do know (unless you demonstrate to all the rest of us that the article misrepresented the ruling) is that FROM THIS POINT onward, you must have teacher credentials in order to teach at home, or operate as a private school, etc. Or likely if not yourself you’ll have to hire one. This is no doubt partly a job creations program. That is painfully obvious. Unions are sorta good at that and no question this legislation moves to that end. As to the family’s actions, that is largely irrelevent in this matter of punishing everyone else for someone’s alleged oversight.
Saw that quote...that’s why I used “substantive difference” and feel that it’s important to not give that idea traction.
I also think this is a rotten case to go to the Supreme Court...and believe that the legislative route is necessary.
This opinion doesn't outlaw homeschooling, but it can help provide cover for those who would want to deny a homeschooler being listed as "persons capable of teaching" and able to file as a private school to obtain exemption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.