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.
At least part of the California code concerning the qualification of a homeschool teacher is as follows.
48224. Children not attending a private, full-time, day school and who are being instructed in study and recitation for at least three hours a day for 175 days each calendar year by a private tutor or other person in the several branches of study required to be taught in the public schools of this state and in the English language shall be exempted. The tutor or other person shall hold a valid state credential for the grade taught. (emphasis mine) The instruction shall be offered between the hours of 8 o'clock a.m. and 4 o'clock p.m.Friendly question, are you saying that your comment about what a parent is required to do to homeschool children in California satisfies § 48224? Your statement sounds oversimplified concerning § 48224, particularly with respect to the part about a valid credential for the grade taught.
Yes, they do.
Is that really all there is?
I am somewhat surprised that California doesn’t have a law that addresses homeschooling specifically.
There should be no public education. Private enterprises should be allowed to competitively bid for education contracts to do the same thing - and continue to compete. Imagine how lucrative it could be for private companies to be given a shot at even a fraction of state and federal budgets for education and how much BETTER a job would be done. Entrepreneurial genius and resourcefulness would chase those billions and turn out unprecedented results in classrooms in order to obtain and keep contracts.
And to be rid of the teachers’ lobby!
Anyone who wants assistance (including legal assistance) should go to the Home School Association of California website. They have detailed instructions for how to proceed.
Quite frankly, any parents who lack the ability to search out and follow the necessary steps to be legal home-schoolers probably also lack the ability to adequately teach their children. The bar in California is that low.
So although this appears to be an unfortunate court ruling, it's not too surprising, and it will have little practical effect on most home-schoolers.
“At least part of the California code concerning the qualification of a homeschool teacher is as follows.”
Actually, this is the part of the California code that relates to qualification for a private tutor in the state of California. Thus, if you want to teach OTHER FOLKS’ kids privately, you must meet the requirements of section 48224.
As many California homeschoolers have actually directly said on many of these threads, most homeschoolers in California qualify through section 48222, not 48224, becoming a "private school" within their own home. The qualifications cited to which you replied are for 48222, not 48224. To qualify through 48222, one must merely be “capable of teaching,” not a certified teacher.
For parents who wish to homeschool their own children, they may qualify through section 48222, principally by filling out a form R-4, being capable of teaching, teaching a curriculum that covers the various subjects also covered in public schools, and keeping a register of attendance.
There is nothing in section 48222, by which most California homeschoolers qualify to homeschool, that speaks about a "valid state credential."
Thus, section 48224 that you cited is irrelevant to most homeschoolers in California.
sitetest
Perhaps you need to check this thread instead of continuing to claim California is outlawing homeschooling.
In the interest of full disclosure, are you posting your own blog? Are you an attorney or do you play one on TV?
The author contends that outrage is not warranted because the L.A. Times misinterpreted the Judge’s decision. The author notes that the parents in question could have registered their homeschool arrangement as a private school and filled out a few forms in order to be in compliance with State law.
But what the judge said regarded the “ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent.”
This phrasing is hardly comforting to those, like the author, who believe that filling out a few forms would placate the judge. Filling out those forms to create a “private school” out of thin air would be just the sort of thing a judge like this would declare a ruse.
A measure of outrage is entirely warranted, IMHO.
I just posted the article.
Good post.
Thank you for your informative post! As a homeschooler in California since 1999, I have filed the R-4 affidavit that allows me to homeschool. I do NOT need to name my child, nor do I need to get a criminal background check, ever! I do tell the State my address and my husband and my names are listed, but that is it!! This Ace guy is just mudding up already muddied waters with all of his misquotes.
It just seems to me that some would like to see homeschoolers under different laws than we currently have. The tutoring laws are much more heavy and burdensome. No thanks.
The judge's very own words about the “ruse of enrolling a child in a private school” seem threatening enough to me.
Homeschoolers in California have reason to be alarmed and vigilant. Other homeschoolers should be as well, since what happens in courts in California bleeds over into other states.
Abusive and ignorant teachers, who are poor parents, give citizens like myself and others a bad reputation.
yes, I have read the ruling, it states that the parents of homeschoolers will have to be “sent to re-education classes”. I suggest you read the ruling, since it seems you haven’t done so yet.
/s
There’s actually more than one thread explaining how this case is absolutely NO threat to homeschooling.
Hey, it’s only a bad thing when it’s done wrong....
LOL!!
I remember well debating if I would ever file or not when I started homeschooling. I know some never do. But if I was ever dragged into court, not following the law could get my family into more trouble than the troubling practice of giving them my whereabouts. But it is bogus that they need the child’s name. I have never given her name. That is my one solace that I remind myself with every year we file.
In fact I am considering her taking a test that the State recognizes as an equivalent to a high school diploma, and it is not a GED. Then I would not need to file ever again after she passes.
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.