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.
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.