Posted on 03/06/2008 3:20:54 PM PST by jdm
A recent California Court of Appeals case has been making some waves as the precursor to the end of homeschooling in this state. Michelle Malkin, Susan Duclos of Wake up America, and Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom have all noted it and discussed the implications of the case with some degree of outrage. I admit, it sounds pretty bad the way the LA Times writes:
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.
"This decision is a direct hit against every home schooler in California," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. "If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California."
The ruling as described would effectively end homeschooling in California, and I agree that it would be an outrageous result. Fortunately, the LA Times misunderstood the case and that misunderstanding was carried over into the discussions of the bloggers listed above, who appear to have discovered the issue because they read the LA Times article or each other. (I am amused to discover that Memeorandum has aided the dissemination of an untrue meme.)
The short version: The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.
On the flipside, I go into more detail about the case and just where the LA Times went wrong. Though fun and probably helpful for homeschool advocates, the OUTRAGE over this case is based on a completely manufactured premise. But they and the LA Times should be admonished for unnecessarily scaring parents.
The case is In re Rachel L and a copy of the appellate court's decision can be found here (PDF). The facts are not in dispute at this point and Susan summarizes them well:
The appellate court ruling stems from a case involving Lynwood parents Phillip and Mary Long, who were repeatedly referred to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services over various allegations, including claims of physical abuse, involving some of their eight children.All of the Long children were enrolled in Sunland Christian School, where they would occasionally take tests, but were educated in their home by their mother.
Background of this, via the Appellate ruling, shows that a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed on behalf of three minor children after the eldest of them reported physical and emotional mistreatment by the children’s father.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services investigated the situation and discovered, among other things, that all eight of the children in the family had been home schooled by the mother rather than educated in a public or private school.
The attorney representing the younger two children asked the juvenile court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or private school.
The juvenile court held that even though the mothers' teaching was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,” there is a constitutional right to homeschooling (that right either belonging to the parents or to the child; it's not clear at this point). Before we go any further we should be clear that California has never recognized a constitutional right to homeschool children and no federal court has recognized a right to homeschool children. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to regulate child education because it is so crucial to the maintenance of "ordered liberty." So the juvenile court is out in left field on this point.
Under California law, attendance at a full-time day public school is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 18. Parents wanting to take their kids out of the public schools must do so under one of the exceptions provided by the California Education Code. For the purposes of home schooling they are: § 48222 Attendance in private school or § 48224 Instruction by credentialed tutor. (There are other exceptions for short-term child actors, the mentally gifted, or leaves of absence, but they are not appropriate for homeschoolers.)
So, generally, parents have three options for educating their kids in California: (1) public school; (2) private school; or (3) credentialed tutor. This is not as bad for homeschoolers as it looks. To be a private school in California, all the parent has to do is be "capable of teaching" the required subjects in the English language and offer instruction in the same "branches of study" required to be taught in the public schools. They also have to keep a register of enrollment at their "school" and a record of attendance. Once a year they have to file an affidavit with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with things like their names and address, the names of the students and their addresses, a criminal background check (since we don't want unsupervised felons teaching kids), and their attendance register. That's it.
In the Longs' case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a "valid charter school" and that the school was supervising the mothers' instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court's opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn't meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren't, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to "enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school." It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.
*Some homeschoolers attempt to twist the "independent study" provision for public school education in § 51745 into a form of generalized homeschooling and that may be what the lawyers were trying to do in this case. Unfortunately, that statute is quite explicit that independent study not take the form of an "alternative curriculum" to that provided by the public school and that it not replace any courses required for a high school diploma.
In sum: homeschoolers, TAKE A BREATH. You are not about to be criminally charged for choosing to educate your children at home, as the LA Times and the various commentators I mentioned above imply. You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren't totally incompetent. The lawyers for these parents and homeschool advocates all over the state are gleefully watching all the outrage this has stirred up, but I think they should be ashamed of themselves for terrifying the parents of homeschooled children.
We should all keep in mind that outrage is fun, but not necessarily harmless.
Those parents who are absolutely freaked out about this case and its implications should go here for more information on homeschooling your child under the private school exemption. I suggest you be sure and read numbers 12-14.
Oh yeah: I should note for the sake of completeness that there is a remedy issue in this ruling that probably makes a good argument on appeal (or at least an interesting one for remedies nerds), but that error does not impact the mistake made by the LA Times or my clarification of that mistake.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
California is the gorilla of textbook purchasers. What they want is what publishers give them **and** everyone else.
Yet,,,I am sure you have read posts from government school defenders that **their** government school is completely unaffected. ( Some even sing a Christmas carol or two!) (eyeroll)
You are correct. Schwarzenegger's poison pen will make the rest of the nation sick.
On a similar note, New York state judges were at least honest enough to admit that the NY constitution said nothing about gay marriage when that issue came up recently, putting the legal ball for deciding gay marriage in NY legislator's court. Based on what you've said about the judicially "converted" homeschooling laws, however, California essentially gave judges the license to legislate homeschooling laws from the bench on a silver platter.
What a mess!
In fact, Californians are probably a prime example of epidemic ignorance of how the government is supposed to work as evidenced by the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8Frankly, I don’t understand why you don’t get that this is a hot potatoe for homeschooling. This is NOT a friendly state. The left is in charge of the government, the schools and most of the judges. If this law was to be re-written, it would kill homeschooling in this state. I don’t get how you don’t get that!
Are you saying that California's majority voters don't want homeschooling?
In another time and place, reasonable people could write a clean law without bias and that would be that. We do not live in such a time. The left wants other peoples children because they kill their own, or they don’t have them at all. (gays) If they want to indoctrinate all children into their communism, they HAVE to have ALL the children. Did you not know that?
The legal majority voters are the ultimate seat of power in California, not the left. So quit using the left as a scapegoat. If the majority has decided on voluntary servitude to their government, the Godless left, then that's their problem.
Also, as I mentioned in another post, Californians are seemingly a good example of the citizen apathy that Jefferson warned about.
"...Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. ..." --Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787 http://tinyurl.com/46x5d
The opinion is quite clear that the question wasn't whether the parents themselves molested the children--it was whether they provided protection from that.
It pointed out that re-inviting the guy back to the house when the girl was present sent the message that they cared more about the guy than the girl's well-being.
Was she telling the truth? Maybe...maybe not.
A father's insistence that a teen be home by 9 p.m. is NOT child abuse! It is being responsible!
Did anyone say it was? I think it was the fact that she was sent to the hospital after the "brutal" physical assault she received from the father that was considered the "abuse."
Funny how the girls all wanted to get the heck out as soon as they could.
I call it ransom!
Some parents can afford to ransom their children from the government religion of atheistic Secular Humanism and Marxism.
I also call it a freedom of conscience tax. Some parents can pay extra so that their children can be freed from the government religious proselytizing.
Secondly, compulsory attendance laws and godless government schools combine to severely restrict the "free exercise of religion" that is guaranteed US citizens under the First Amendment.
There are several problems with the First Amendment.
Once the government forces a child into a government school, the child is ordered by the government to shut up for most of the day. What he is permitted to say or not say is strictly regulated. His ability to publish is also strictly regulated by the government. If he does not abide by this the government will punish him. Obviously being forbidden by the government to speak or publish makes free practice and expression of religious belief impossible! ( violation of free speech, free press, and free expression of religion)
Also a religiously neutral education can NOT exist. This is axiomatic! Since free and open teaching of Judeo Christian belief is **forbidden** by numerous court rulings, then some other religious belief system is sucked into the vacuum. That religious worldview may be materialism, atheism, Marxism, paganism, Secular Humanism, relativism, pragmatism, global warming, earth worship,,,etc. If Judeo Christian belief is forbidden, some other "ism", or combination of "isms", will take its place.
Obviously the teaching of non-Judeo Christian belief is NOT religiously neutral. What is not so well understood it that scrubbing the curriculum of Judeo Christian belief teaches the children that Christianity is somehow shameful, and only to be practiced in private, as if it were a bathroom activity.
Yes, government schooling is wildly unconstitutional, but no one is really interested.
Government school defenders will insist, in the face of all evidence, that government schools are constitutional.
And, then there are posters (that are conservative on every other issue) who believe that government schools can be reformed. They are utterly obliviously to, or incapable of grasping, that the entire premise of government schooling is unconstitutional. Government schooling has ALWAYS been, is now, and always will be, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They simply can not see that government schools, freedom of conscience, and the First Amendment are completely incompatible and can NOT coexist!
Finally, when conflicts come before the courts, they **never** rule on the fundamental incompatibility of government schooling with the First Amendment. Instead, they rule as narrowly as possible!
It's more about free babysitting.
Free government school babysitting is powerfully addicting!
I find it odd that the girls were with the dad. Usually, after a divorce, the children are awarded to the mom. So?...What's going on there?
Going to the hospital does NOT mean that a person is injured or needs treatment. It merely means that they showed up there, or asked to be taken there. This might have been the perfect ruse to be sent back to the permissive natural mom, who wouldn't care if the teen were out all night!
Sounds to me that these girls could be very street smart, highly manipulative, and intent on causing the dad ( and eeeeevil stepmom) tons of trouble!
It wouldn't be the first time.
The fact is that **if** abuse exists, then deal with it. ( And, I see a great big **IF**!)
Keep the homeschooling issue out of it, especially when the ruling threatens thousands of other homeschooling families.
My rants in the thread were evidently based on bogus information. Although I appreciate the perspectives I got concerning California-style homeschooling, I am blacklisting at least the following site in my personal records as this site was referenced in the OP of one of the threads.
"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." Legal and Courts, Home schooling unlawful, says California court http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=69177Above link might not work.
“I have a link to California homeschooling code and I review sections in question before I reply to posts.”
As there is no specific California legal code that deals directly and specifically with homeschooling, I doubt that you have a link to the California homeschooling code.
In any event, you missed the part of the California legal code that defines private schools. The definition is broad, and certainly encompasses what homeschoolers do, even if homeschooling isn't specifically mentioned.
“And California homeschooling code is a good example of poorly written code, in my opinion.”
In that there is no specific “California homeschooling code,” you're entitled to your opinion, but so what?
sitetest
Having successfully home schooled 3. I did just fine using outside classes to teach Chemistry, Spanish, college level writing and college level music theory not to mention art, music lessons, orchestra, chamber music and sports.
Knowing what your strengths are and teaching them is great, knowing where your weaknesses are and supplying the best outside help to teach your children is just loving and brilliant. When it comes to my children I wanted the best and that was never public reeducation that is opposed to the values that this country was founded on and I hold dear or allowing anybody to get their hands on those children all day every day without approving what was being taught.
Mission of HLDSA:
1. Write paychecks to the hardworking HLDSA staff and attorneys, and try to hire more people each year and gain influence, so that they can
2. Advocate for the rights of parents to homeschool.
There is nothing wrong with this mission. But like all such groups, they tend to go spin things to raise money and create PR buzz for themselves. And if they resolve the homsechool situation, they lose their jobs. Again, this is not to say that HLDSA or other groups are bad or even dishonest, but it is a reminder that they spin things to make it look dire for their issue in order to raise money and PR buzz.
CA homeschoolers have been doing fine for decades under current laws. This one family did not abide by the laws. The court issued a questionable ruling, but it did not outlaw homeschooling.
True. And this would be a hugely winning issue for Republicans as parents got the opportunity to send their kids to schools reflecting the family's values.
Every Republican running for office shoould swear to actively advocate for a $6,000/per year/per child tax credit for private school tuition.
That would revolutionize the nation.
Private schools and homeschooling additionally imperil the social left's ability to ideologically indoctrinate the next generation.
Sorry! But middle class parents are very loyal to their child's ( so-called "good") government school. In communities such as mine there are NO private schools and NO charter schools. Parents are very wary of voting for vouchers that they perceive will hurt their child's government schools. They also see vouchers as a way to take money from their child's government school so that the poor in the inner cities can have the privilege of attending private schools when their child can't.
Also, in my county the population is **fiercely** loyal to and supportive of the government school monopoly SPORTS TEAMS! ( Yes, I am shouting! I am completely exasperated with such shallowness!)
In my county the government school is the single largest employer. Then add to this all the businesses and employees who supply goods and services to the schools. There are even people like my dentist who receives a goodly portion of his income through school dental insurance.
With all of these people sucking a living from government schools I **KNOW** that no church in my county will open a private school that would accept vouchers. NO minister in my county will bite the govenrment school hands that put money in his collection plate.
Every Republican running for office shoould swear to actively advocate for a $6,000/per year/per child tax credit for private school tuition.
Every Republican saw what happened in Utah. Middle class voters turned out to vote down vouchers by 60% to %40! Given that resounding defeat for vouchers in Republican dominated Utah I surely don't expect Republicans in my state to offer up vouchers any time soon.
That would revolutionize the nation.
The following would revolutionize the nation:
Conservatives create private scholarship foundations that would award private vouchers to kids attending private schools. These foundations could also sponsor individual teachers who could then set up micro-schools, mini-schools, dame schools, one room school houses, virtural schools, tutoring centers, and homeschool cooperatives.
The private foundations could certify the curriculum and teachers, and test the students. The foundations should also set up sports leagues to break the government monopoly on team sports. <
The Prussian style, brick and mortar school should be avoided. First, they are expensive to build and there are many health, zoning, and employee taxes and insurances issues. Second, with today's technology education can be delivery far more efficiently and with more flexibility and individuality than in a large bureaucratic, lock-step settings. Finally, it is cruel warehouse children and to treat them like prisoners.
Yes! Conservatives could do this, **IF THEY WANTED**! We are a wealthy nation! Not only could we offer and outstanding conservative education to every child in the nation, we could likely do it for every child in the world. We are that rich!
The vouchers would need to cover the full cost of the education. Unfortunately government is giving its education away ( to the parent) for the cost of $0! Conservatives must match the price of $0 to the parent if we are going to wean them away from their government school. Free babysitting is powerfully addictive.
If Harvard and hundreds and thousands of colleges across this nation can have an endowments in the billions and multi-millions then conservatives could do the same for K-12 education.
In fact, conservatives MUST act now!
If we do not rescue our nation's children from the government schools, and SHUT DOWN these indoctrination camps, the Marxists will win in the voting booth! The Marxists WILL succeed in indoctrinating the next generation of voters, and we will all become slaves!
Yes! It **is ** that serious!
isi.org will take your money.
My plan is better and would be assured of incredible success.
Look what happened in Utah, one of the **most** Republican states in the union! If vouchers couldn’t be passed there, why one earth would you think other Republican in other states would have success?
The best, surest, and most reliable way to shut down government schools is for conservatives to start their own private scholarship foundations. We could start today, with no politics involved.
A faith that changed the world surely does not need to by hyphenated, no matter how politically correct doing so became post-WWII.
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.