Posted on 03/06/2008 7:32:18 AM PST by edcoil
LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Thousands of homeschoolers in California are left in legal limbo by an appeals court ruling that homeschooling is not a legal option in the state and that a family who has homeschooled all their children for years must enrol their two youngest in state or private schools. Justice H. Walter Croskey in a written opinion said, "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."
The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught".
And he explains his rationale, which seems fairly reasonable. BTW, one of his stated reasons is that CA law requires that teachers to be "qualified;" and even the trial court in this case ruled that the mother was not qualified: her kids homeschooling was "lousy" and "bad," among other perjoratives.
I believe that most homeschoolers in CA use the private school laws because A there are no homeschool laws per se and B it’s been settled in courts and such before that they should do that. This judge has now put pretty much every homeschool family in CA in danger.
Only because (as I infer from the ruling) California law, as written, does not address home-schooling, although it definitely should. IMO, California homeschoolers should not treat this as a "danger," but rather an opportunity to change the law.
I read the opinion, and the “unpublished findings” that explain the situation.
I couldn't find those ... could you post a link?
Nice rant, but grossly misinformed.
California appellate judges, including Walter Croskey, are selected in non-partisan direct elections.
OK, the law in California is wrong. So change the law.
Or do you think it better that judges should be allowed to re-write the law to suit your idea of what's right?
“one of his stated reasons is that CA law requires that teachers to be ‘qualified;’...”
Actually, I believe the law says “capable of teaching.”
In my own mind, that's an extremely low standard to make. Other than folks who are just about comatose, just about anyone is capable of teaching to some degree or other.
I think that the justices in this case looked past the plain meaning of the state's laws, as well as their usual interpretation, and distorted the laws that are on the books because they're trying to go after a child welfare case through the state's schooling laws.
It makes me wonder just how real is the state's child abuse case against the parents.
sitetest
It’s pretty horrifying. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:-gfLatRwHh8J:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B192601.DOC+B192601&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
I hope that works.
Now, I think the parents (if the above is all true) should be drawn and quartered, and the kids should be put in foster care most likely, but this ruling by the judge on homeschooling *must* be overturned. As others on this thread have stated, for decades California homeschoolers have abided by the law, there have been court cases to settle this issue. Now one judge is saying that parents are not qualified educators. Make no mistake; when he says “qualified” he means “teachers’ license.”
“Now one judge is saying that parents are not qualified educators. Make no mistake; when he says ‘qualified’ he means ‘teachers’ license.’”
And if that is what they, the appeals court justices, mean (and it's not very clear that it is what they mean), then that's in contradiction to California law, which requires someone “capable of teaching” for someone running a private school, contrasted against “certified teacher” if one uses one or more private tutors.
sitetest
A fair correction -- I was paraphrasing from (poor) memory.
In my own mind, that's an extremely low standard to make. Other than folks who are just about comatose, just about anyone is capable of teaching to some degree or other. I think that the justices in this case looked past the plain meaning of the state's laws....
Actually, the judges in this case did not rely on their own opinions on that matter; but rather on the Turner case, which was presented as controlling precedent. (See the detailed discussion beginning on Page 7 of the ruling).
Note, BTW, that this ruling does not preclude home-schooling at all -- the parents could become qualified as "tutors" under California law.
As noted above, the real problem here is that folks in California have been trying to find ways around the clear language of the law, in order to do their home-schooling. And thus, when confronted by a ruling based on the letter of the law, they're left with no options.
The real solution is simple to state, if perhaps hard to achieve: change the law.
‘illegal’ is a poor way to spell ‘superior.’
Not only no, but Hell No. They don't, for example, have a "God-given right" to decide that their children need to be educated as terrorists.
What parents really have, is a responsibility to ensure that their childred receive a valid and reasonable education, so that they can properly function in the real world. Not only the kids, but you and I also, suffer if they are illiterate, or so ignorant that they cannot behave properly within our society.
And I notice you didn't answer my question -- which of course you can't without also endorsing judicial activism such as occurred in Roe vs. Wade. But then, you realized that, didn't you?
Hey, Washingon is already full of the ‘fugees from Kaliforn-eye-A and I am just trying to get some of our nearby states to “share the wealth.”
Part of the difficulty is that I can't find (although I haven't looked too hard) whether or not this family actually filled out the form to be a "private school" under California law. I suspect they didn't, and now the system is using that technical violation to get in the back door on the abuse case. The opinion from the "judges" of the appeals court suggests they didn't avail themselves of that option in the law. If that's a correct speculation, then it's possible that the court is not challenging the ability of homeschoolers to use the private school option that is spelled out in law.
But the ordinary method of dealing with someone who hasn't properly filled in a form needed to do something for which they have a legal right to do is for the state, upon discovering the lacuna, to provide a little assistance in getting it fixed. And, indeed, if parents have a right to homeschool their children (and they do), it would be difficult for the court to abrogate that right over a lack of a properly-filled out government form.
Thus, the "judges," illegitimately wishing to give the state better leverage in their abuse case, had to rule that there is no right of parents to homeschool.
They're evil slobs. One hopes they repent before they must pay for their crimes.
sitetest
LOL! Yes, grossly misinformed -- and thanks for the admission. As a responsible adult, I expect that you will now take your chastisement as an opportunity to transform yourself from one of the ignorant 99, to the enlightened 1.
BTW, who did Croskey run against in his last election, hmmmm?
You can read about the selection process here. If you don't like it, you can work to change it.
According to the ruling, they claimed to be operating under the "independent study" rules of Sunland Christian School (a "valid charter school" under California law).
The ruling, again, addresses this issue by reference to California law, and relevant precedent, and rejected the claim.
Thus, the "judges," illegitimately wishing to give the state better leverage in their abuse case, had to rule that there is no right of parents to homeschool.
Well, no. They're an appellate court, which must be asked (by appeal) to address particular rulings of the lower trial court. The trial court made a specific ruling on home-schooling, which was then appealed. The appeals court took the case and ruled on it.
Again, the real issue here is that folks are trying to work around the law as written. The judges should (one hopes) stick to the law as written. And home-schoolers in California should work to change the law.
LOL! And if those standards include, say, indoctrination in terrorism tactics or the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, you'd be fine with that. Right?
Well, I doubt you really believe that, except as a ranting point. Then again, you seem unable to step back from your ideology, even when it takes you to insane conclusions -- so perhaps you wouldn't even grant the reasonable proposition that the aforementioned "standards" are not acceptable.
The problem is, you're asserting a "right," but ducking the responsibility that goes with it. Which tells me all I need to know about you.
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.