Posted on 03/06/2008 3:20:54 PM PST by jdm
Thanks for posting that. I am quite confident that HSLDA has properly analyzed this case and Lord willing they will be able to get this ruling reversed or depublished. They have a very excellent record of winning these sort of cases.
Your understanding of CA law is how it has worked in the past but please check the letter from HSLDA further up the thread because they believe that this case could threaten the ability of homeschoolers to register as private schools. I know that the facts of this case are distinguishable by the language that the appellate court used seemed to apply equally to setting up a homeschool as a private school. Basically, I trust HSLDA and if they are worried then there is reason to be worried.
Correction - but the language used by the appellate court seems to apply equally to a situation where a non-certified parent sets their homeschool up as a private school under CA law.
“I'm essentially applying basic reading rules to California's homeschooling code.”
That doesn't appear to be the case. Try harder.
A plain reading of the code shows that there are several ways to be exempt from public school attendance. One of those is described in 48222. Another option is described in 48224.
You yourself say, “And given that 48224 doesn't complement 48222,...”
That's right. They're separate. Chinese menu time. Pick one.
“In fact, not only does 48224 evidently does not reflect the will of majority voters, but it's also evidently being ignored by education officials; big mistake.”
Certainly it does. If you wish to hire tutors to teach your children, they must be certified. Unrelated to teaching your children yourself.
“In other words, Californians need to clean up their state's homeschooling code instead of blaming judge's who have to try to interpret the screwed up code in the first place.”
Nah. The “judge's” [sic] are asses trying to achieve a specific outcome, either recklessly, without care to the effect on others, or to advance a more sinister agenda.
sitetest
In other parts of the California code, a “private school” is defined as a ““person, firm, association, partnership, or
corporation offering or conducting private school instruction on the elementary or high school
level.”
As I've read elsewhere, that's a pretty broad definition, and there's nothing in that definition of “private school” that would exclude someone teaching his children at home.
A parent teaching her children at home would be a "person... offering or conducting private school instruction..."
Thus, meaning is given because meaning is provided by the code itself.
sitetest
[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.]
Excuse me, but is this not saying, in liberal speak, that the parents must abide by the statutes of public education and therefore hinder their teaching of Christian Biblical principles, namely the Word of God, to their children? Is this not an effort to undermine Christians teaching their children according to the Word of God?
I think it is and the government school system is but a social engineering project run by athiest liberals who hate the Christ of God and would corrupt all children with the lies of government run educational systems.
In short, the corrupt athiest is allowed to corrupt their children, let the Christians teach their children the truth so that God can bless them.
[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!]
The athiest feminist run, atheist feminist owned,atheist feminist corrupted teachers lobby is more to the point. School education has gotten so bad that no money can correct it and now they want to destroy the last bastion of real education, home schooling. The technicalities they require are unconstitutional and so many homeschooled kids do so much better than the public schooled children with all the teachers credentials meaning very little in todays corrupt government propaganda centers.
A background check? If you fail the check you can still raise your kids, just not educate them?
Hmmmm.
[Abusive and ignorant parents, who are poor teachers, give homeschoolers like myself and others a bad reputation.]
Abusive and ignorant teachers and judges and legislators, who are poor at wisdom and bad at teaching, give homeschoolers and others a bad reputation in their quest to put all children into failed perverse culture institutions of lower learning is what I see.
[...................mothers’ teaching was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,”...............]
Athiest liberal teaching is lousy, meager, and bad and has been the worst it ever has since the nation of America began, in case some have not noticed.
Considering the 20-year history this family has had with the state having to step in when children end up going to the hospital for being out past 9, being sexually molested, etc., I just hope all works out for the kids.
And of course, the judge is just following the law that was created by the legislators, as you said. Perhaps you believe there should be no required school/homeschool attendance, and I can understand that argument, but I think it’s a debatable question.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Great news! Wishful thinking on the part of the LA Times, I guess. But don’t mess with us. We homeschooling parents will never roll over for anything like this.
Regardless, compulsory schooling violates "the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of children," since only parents who can afford to pay twice for their child's education (once through taxes and once through tuition) enjoy the liberty of directing their child's education.
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.
Yes, government schooling is wildly unconstitutional, but no one is really interested. It's more about free babysitting.
I read the social worker's report.
1) The first incident of molestation occurred at a babysitter’s house. So,,,,This could never happen to your child?
2) The report stated the older teen went to the emergency room but said nothing about whether she was treated for any injuries. Or, if there were injuries, that they were definitively from the father. Being that this girl is the product of a failed first marriage, there could likely be many reasons why an older teen may wish to stir up trouble. Also, we do not know if the teen was homeschooled from the beginning. If she attended government school, there was plenty of opportunity there to learn “street-smart” manipulative behavior.
3) The report also stated the the second incident of molestation came from a visitor to the house, **not** from the parents.
4) The social worker's report suggested that the father's insistence that his daughters wear modest dresses was somehow abusive. A missing door from one of the bedrooms was reason for abuse. That the family's house was crowed and cluttered. ( Geeze! With prices as they are in California, is it any wonder the house is SMALL?)
5) A father's insistence that a teen be home by 9 p.m. is NOT child abuse! It is being responsible!
There. Fixed it.
This is news to me! Thanks for a great post!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the most part, churches are NOT going to step up and do what is right. The ministers running them are NOT going to open private schools!
Why?
Because ministers are NOT going to bite the hand that feeds them, and there are a LOT of government workers sitting in those church pews. There are also business owners and their employees that are suppliers of goods and services to the government schools. Even my **dentist** depend upon government school dental insurance for a significant portion of his income!
Conservatives ( Christian and non-Christian) need to start private scholarship foundations that would award private vouchers to students attending **conservative** private schools. These foundations could also sponsor individual teachers.
If we sit here waiting for churches to do what is right, the Marxists WILL WIN!
More FYI.
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.