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".
Actually, I do ... because I looked it up. You do that, and get back to me. Oh silly boob.
Parents should be allowed to teach whatever they want - including terrorist tactics. The law should be concerned only when the parents and children take action to put those teachings into practice.
The govermnent and public have no right to a say in the education of any particular child.
So.
The day that Americans being to open their eyes and begin to see the sophistry of tolerance is the day that the chains will break free.
“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.”
And appears to have done so by distorting law and precedent to take after this family.
I don't know the whole history of homeschooling in California. I live in Maryland. However, I'm somewhat aware that the state of California was at one time not especially hospitable to homeschoolers, but that after much thrashing about, remedies were found and put in place to permit homeschoolers sufficient freedom of action. Appeals to court cases decided in the 1950s seem to bypass the settlements found in later decades. I assume evil intent on the part of the “judges” involved in this travesty.
Here's some stuff from HSLDA's site that sheds a little more light on the matter:
---------------------------------------------
In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statute is void because of its unconstitutional vagueness and upheld the right of home schools to operate as private schools. People v. Darrah, No. 853104 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986); People v. Black, No. 853105 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986).
Furthermore, in Institute of Creation Research v. Honig,Civil No. 90-0483-B-(M), January 29, 1992, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California ordered ... "a private K-12 school is not within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Education for the purpose of approval of courses or course content or issuance of regulations, except as provided by law," (p. 3). This ruling would apply to all home schools that file a private school affidavit.
-------------------------------------------
As you can see, jurisprudence in California on the topic of homeschooling didn't end in the 1950s.
“Well, no. They're an appellate court, which must be asked (by appeal) to address particular rulings of the lower trial court.”
Well, yes. The trial court ruled in favor of the family, and the appellate “judges,” with clear bias toward the authoritarian state authorities, manipulated and twisted law and precedent to come to the opposite conclusion of the trial court.
“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.”
It appears that to the degree that the “judges” followed any standard but their own tyrannical natures, they followed outdated precedents that contradict the actual plain language of the law, and failed to follow how this part of the law has evolved in California.
sitetest
LOL! Bullshit. You and I have a right to complain (and more) if a kid is so uneducated that he becomes a burden on, or even a positive danger to, a free society.
I refer you to the words of Mr. Jefferson:
"Of all the views of this law [for public education], none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe as they are the ultimate guardians of their own liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:206
I am not at all defending California's public education system -- but I side with Jefferson on this one. We don't need a bunch of ignorant fools deciding our future for us.
Are you watching the same election I am? We already have the ignorant fools deciding for us. I don’t see how parents exercising freedoms given them by God can do any worse than the government has done.
“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? “
Of course, no one has a “right” to do that which is intrinsically evil. Parents have a right to direct the education of their children, but of course, don't have a right to misdirect that education.
Thus, parents teaching their children to be terrorists do what is evil, and will be held accountable for it.
But not every evil may be addressed by the state. This is a fundamental principle of conservatism. Where were you when this one was addressed? The state has no legitimate standing to question the education of children by their parents. Parents, in this case, are accountable to God.
sitetest
They appear to have based their rulings on precedent (copiously cited) and the exact letter of the law. What more do you want?
It appears that to the degree that the “judges” followed any standard but their own tyrannical natures, they followed outdated precedents that contradict the actual plain language of the law, and failed to follow how this part of the law has evolved in California.
Hm. Well, you can say that ... but the two cases you cited don't deal with the specifics of this ruling. And -- just as in this case -- it would be good to see the actual rulings cited, so as to see what the court really ruled. I strongly suspect that there, as here, the homeschool advocates are not accurately presenting what the ruling says.
And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure that a ruling by the Municipal Court of Santa Maria is controlling in a case like this one....
"a private K-12 school is not within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Education for the purpose of approval of courses or course content or issuance of regulations, except as provided by law," (p. 3). This ruling would apply to all home schools that file a private school affidavit.
The ruling addresses this specifically, beginning on about page 8. "Provided by law" is the relevant phrase, btw.
Here's the thing. I'm not a Californian or a lawyer.
But I'm not braindead, either. It's clear to me how the HSLDA citations apply - if it's not to you, well, go figure it out for yourself. In any event, it seems to be clear to a whole lot of other people - including 166,000 homeschoolers, and the entire government of California that has permitted these 166,000 homeschoolers to use the laws in this way - how this applies.
Again, although I don't know the precise history of how homeschooling law evolved in California over the past 50 years, I know that the law evolved substantially since the main decision that the black-robed tyrants cited in their “opinion.” I don't need to be a Californian, a lawyer, or even a historian to be able to see that they reached back for precedents from a discredited past when the state of California DID try to prevent people from homeschooling.
That was an illegitimate power grab on their part, and as I said, I hope they repent before they must pay for their crimes.
sitetest
Correct. And who gets to decide the difference between a "directed" vs. "misdirected" education? Not the parents, obviously. If they're going to be "held accountable," it is the state that will do it.
But not every evil may be addressed by the state. This is a fundamental principle of conservatism.
But some evils can and must be addressed by the state. That is another fundamental principle of conservatism.
And of course, the difficulty is in deciding which evils should, and should not, be addressed by the state. Of course, that debate absolutely requires that the participants be capable of rationally discussing and discerning the facts and arguments presented ... which is why Jefferson (among others) was so adamant on the need for an educated populace.
Jefferson knew that an educated populace is a fundamental requirement for a free society -- and thus he was an early and fervent advocate of public education.
And, at the very least, it is incumbent upon the state to demand and ensure that all children be held to certain educational standards.
As to whether California is actually offering a good public education is an entirely different matter, of course.
bump
I have been homeschooling in California since 1999. I have filed an R-4 every year. ISP’s also file R-4’s for the whole school enrollment, an umbrella school. And private Christian, Catholic or whatever schools also file R-4.
What I do remember of the battles here before I became interested in homeschooling was an effort (1980’s) to force ALL PRIVATE school teachers to have a teaching credential. It failed. This ruling seems to me to be a threat not just to homeschoolers, but all “private” schools in the state, including homeschoolers. We all operate under the same law.
I agree with you. This is a definite power grab aimed at all parents who do not wish to put their children into the homo-indoctrination centers sometimes called “public schools”. I find it NOT a coincidence this happens after SB 777 has become law.
No, it's not clear at all. We don't have the rulings themselves, we have only the vague interpretation provided by an advocacy group. And the article under discussion here shows the very great distance possible between the claims made by advocacy groups, and the rulings they puport to discuss. I have not been able to find the rulings themselves, and am not willing to take HSLDA's word for it.
As it is, you've provided vague citations to two rulings by a city municipal court. I'm pretty sure that a California state appellate court ruling trumps those.
And, fwiw, all you've really provided is a cite from a website which claims that the Turner and Shinn rulings are no longer valid as regards "private schools," but -- and this is crucial -- the website cites no California cases that overturn either Turner or Shinn. The HSLDA arguments have apparently not been tested (at least, not successfully) in court.
While it's possible that such rulings exist, the HSLDA website does not cite them -- and it leads me to conclude that no such rulings exist.
FWIW, the with regard to standards for private schools, see the court's discussion of Board of Education v. Allen.
“Correct. And who gets to decide the difference between a ‘directed’ vs. ‘misdirected’ education? Not the parents, obviously. If they're going to be ‘held accountable,’ it is the state that will do it.”
No, not the state. The state has no right, no legitimate interest, no business at all in holding parents accountable for misdirected education. I already said that in my last post. It's none of the state's damned business, the same state that once taught through segregation that blacks were inferior, the same state that today teaches children how to put condoms on bananas, the state may NOT legitimately direct the education of children against the wishes of their parents or judge the direction by parents of their children's education.
For parents, God is judge. That's it.
“But some evils can and must be addressed by the state.”
This ain't one of them, and anyone who thinks it is is an authoritarian statist.
“...which is why Jefferson (among others) was so adamant on the need for an educated populace.”
Don't care much for the musings of Thomas Jefferson, a man who cut up the Bible and put it back together according to his own prejudices and biases.
“And, at the very least, it is incumbent upon the state to demand and ensure that all children be held to certain educational standards.”
Perhaps they should start with the “education” they provide to children in the public schools.
But I don't accept what you're saying anyway. The state is intrinsically incompetent to “demand and ensure that all children be held to certain educational standards.” See: No Child Left Behind Act for an example.
sitetest
Yes, it is. The state has a legitimate and obvious interest in ensuring that its citizenry be well-educated. Thomas Jefferson was an early and effective advocate of the proposition.
.... the same state that once taught through segregation that blacks were inferior, the same state that today teaches children how to put condoms on bananas, the state may NOT legitimately direct the education of children against the wishes of their parents or judge the direction by parents of their children's education.
You're trying to change the subject, I see. One can certainly object to the examples you cite, without having to surrender the main point, which is that the state has a definite and legitimate interest in ensuring an educated populace.
Don't care much for the musings of Thomas Jefferson, a man who cut up the Bible and put it back together according to his own prejudices and biases.
And wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights, and so on. Really ... you seem bound and determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater, don't you?
This ain't one of them, and anyone who thinks it is is an authoritarian statist.
OK, I've had it with you. You seemed reasonable at first, but now you're spiraling down into whackadoodlery. Have a nice day.
“’It's clear to me how the HSLDA citations apply’
“No, it's not clear at all.’”
It is to me. HSLDA cites them as on-point to the question. Further research indicates that their “vague interpretation” is pretty much the accepted interpretation in California. I've actually found independent commentary and detailed analysis of the cases involved.
“I'm pretty sure that a California state appellate court ruling trumps those.”
These cases have never been challenged, and even the illegitimate black-robed tyrants here haven't directly addressed them. However, in researching the question, I also found that the current interpretation, as cited by the HSLDA, was incorporated into a federal consent decree between the state of California and the federal government in protecting the rights of parents and children in Calfornia.
Or at least, this has been the understanding of 166,000 homeschoolers in the state of California for some years, and apparently, that of the executive branch of the government of the state of California, in that they have permitted 166,000 families to homeschool according to these interpretations of law, and the legislature, which has not lifted a finger to modify the law in any way to prevent these 166,000 homeschooling families from using the law in this way.
Oh, but heck, against a couple of hundred thousand folks using the law and two full branches of government accepting that that is the proper use of the law, we have three black-robed bastards who say otherwise.
They can drop dead. It would be no loss to decent people in the world if they did so, and soon.
sitetest
“Yes, it is. The state has a legitimate and obvious interest in ensuring that its citizenry be well-educated. Thomas Jefferson was an early and effective advocate of the proposition.”
You're making an assertion without any evidence. Your citation of Mr. Jefferson means little, is little more than an illegitimate appeal to authority, unless you're telling me that he was some sort of infallible guide, in which case, I assume that you also reject the Bible as commonly received, and only accept the Bible as produced by Mr. Jefferson?
“You're trying to change the subject, I see. One can certainly object to the examples you cite, without having to surrender the main point, which is that the state has a definite and legitimate interest in ensuring an educated populace.”
No, I'm not changing the subject. I'm providing examples that show that the state is unfit, incompetent, both practically and morally to “ensur[e] an educated populace.”
“And wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights, and so on. Really ... you seem bound and determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater, don't you?”
Although he took the largest role in writing the Declaration, he wasn't alone in writing it - or approving of it - and thus, his judgment was tempered by the judgment of many others. His private musings didn't benefit from that tempering. As for the Bill or Rights, I'd thought that others had greater roles to play, including George Mason. But even so, the same applies - these were group efforts, and his judgment was tempered by the judgment of others.
“OK, I've had it with you. You seemed reasonable at first, but now you're spiraling down into whackadoodlery. Have a nice day.”
LOL. You tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.
sitetest
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.