Posted on 09/26/2002 7:17:54 AM PDT by John Jorsett
Next month, Janeen Dell'Acqua will file paperwork declaring her home a private school where she teaches her three children, paperwork she's sent in each October for years.
But this year, the state Department of Education has written that she and thousands of other home-schooling parents shouldn't bother.
The department has long held that home-schoolers who file the annual affidavits required of private schools – including about 640 families in San Diego County – aren't educating their children as the law requires.
Parents who do so and do not have a valid teaching credential are acting illegally, and their children are truant, said department legal officials.
Enforcement has been rare, and the home-schooling has quietly continued until a department memo this summer caused outrage among home-schooling proponents.
The memo about a minor change in the way private schools file affidavits – documents that certify information about the school, such as courses taught – said that because home-schooling is illegal, home-schooling parents did not need to file an annual private school affidavit.
While state officials said the memo just restated policy, it has alarmed many home-schoolers and advocacy groups who are concerned that it signals a crackdown.
And home-schoolers disagree with the state, saying California law – which does not specifically mention home-schooling – does allow home-schooling.
Among those angry about the state's position is county Board of Education trustee Jim Kelly, whose son was home-schooled.
He was joined by hundreds of home-schoolers last night as he asked the county board to tell state lawmakers and education officials they support home-schooling and believe the department's opinion is wrong.
Dave Bower, a public school teacher whose children are home-schooled, said parents are asking only for the freedom to educate their children.
Kelly, who also held a news conference, said, "I think they're just trying to scare parents into putting their kids in public schools.
"Who do these children belong to, the government or their parents?" he asked, calling the position tyranny.
The board approved a supportive resolution, but three trustees changed a part of Kelly's wording that they thought encouraged parents to defy the law. And before the meeting, county trustee Nick Aguilar said Kelly is using his position on the board to promote himself as he campaigns for the Grossmont school board.
A San Diego County Office of Education memo said the county office and the state have previously processed private school affidavits from home-schoolers and said that the department's putting its interpretation of the law in writing represents "a major change."
But department spokeswoman Nicole Winger said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin was simply reiterating a long-standing policy and rebutted accusations that Eastin is on a campaign to root out home-schoolers.
She said the only change is that private school affidavits are available on the Internet and will be sent directly to the state this year.
In the past, private schools would file the affidavits at the county level and the county would pass the information on to the state.
"I think you will largely see business as usual in most school districts," Winger said.
The root of the controversy is the interpretation of laws which require that students attend public school from ages 6 to 18 unless they are taught by a tutor with a credential or are taught at a private school by someone "capable of teaching."
The laws do not define what makes someone capable of teaching, but teachers at private schools are not required to have a credential.
Private schools must file an annual affidavit with the state. The document includes information such as the name and address of the school, enrollment by grade, courses taught and qualifications of teachers.
Court cases State education officials said parents cannot make their home into a private school by simply filing the affidavit, citing court cases on the issue in 1953 and 1961. If they could, there could be thousands of children lacking any supervision of their education, Eastin said in a letter to lawmakers last month. The department considers as truant children who are home-schooled by their parents who do not have a credential, whether or not the parents have filed the affidavit.
However, the state does not regulate private schools or prosecute truants, which is the responsibility of local school districts and district attorneys.
Some home-schooling organizations say the state has never outlawed parents operating private schools to teach their own children.
J. Michael Smith, president of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association, said the court cases the state relies on to support its opinion are obscure lower-court decisions contradicted by more recent changes in laws regarding private schools.
The two sides also disagree on what should be done to clear up the matter.
After receiving dozens of angry phone calls and letters on the issue, Eastin wrote a letter to legislators last month saying the issue "cries out for a legislative solution." The Legislature did not act before adjourning.
Smith said no law regulating home education is needed, and the state should simply reverse its legal opinion. He estimates there are more than 100,000 families in the state who home-school their children.
Some frightened The prospect of being prosecuted for truancy has frightened some parents into considering enrolling their children in a traditional school, parent Dell'Acqua said. The county Office of Education has also received calls from people concerned that the state memo signals a change.
Dell'Acqua, who teaches her children in her Valley Center home, believes the law is on her side.
"They legally cannot come after me because I am still considered a legal private school," she said.
The San Diego County District Attorney's Office, which prosecutes truants, would follow up on complaints regarding home-schoolers, but spokeswoman Liz Pursell said officials are unaware of any cases referred by school districts.
The letter the county Office of Education sent to people who file affidavits suggested that home-schoolers enroll in independent-study programs at public schools so they could teach their children at home legally.
The county, school districts, charter schools and some private schools offer programs for families who want their children to do most of their work at home.
The programs may prescribe the curriculum and have teachers who grade work and meet with students periodically, or in the case of some private-school programs, simply record attendance and prepare transcripts.
The private-school affidavit method appeals to some parents because it is tuition-free and largely free of state regulation.
Some home-schooling organizations are encouraging home-schooling families to proceed as they have in the past and file the affidavits – which are due between Oct. 1 and Oct. 15. Smith said his organization will defend any families who may face legal action.
Because a public education is actually a step in the wrong direction.
- Parents must be credentialed if they want to teach their children at home. Otherwise, they are breaking the law.
- Public school teachers that do not have credentials are okay so long as they are working to get their credentials.
- Non-credentialed homeschool parents working to get their credentials but not yet credentialed are not okay.
- Enforcement is at the local level, not at the State level but the State does consider children that are not in school to be truant.
- The decesion to go after the students (and the parents) for truancy is up to the DA at the local level and the local school board.
I was directed to the following site for more information regarding the states position.
CDE-Private Schools
There is a section specifically on homeschooling at this link
CDE-Homeschooling
All your kid are belong to us!
"In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , the Court held unconstitutional an Oregon Act which forbade parents from sending their children to private schools because such an act"unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."
"Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 , comprehensively summarized the principles underlying the Constitution's guarantees of privacy: "The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." [381 U.S. 479, 495]
"As this Court said in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , at 166, the Meyer and Pierce decisions "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter."
"Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 551 -552: "Certainly the safeguarding of the home does not follow merely from the sanctity of property rights. The home derives its pre-eminence as the seat of family life. And the integrity of that life is something so fundamental that it has been found to draw to its protection the principles of more than one explicitly granted Constitutional right."
"The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution [381 U.S. 479, 496] explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization - surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."
Constitutionally, this threat to home schooling is a no brainer for parents in California to challenge and win as a 9th amendment violation.
Become proactive and vigilent with regard to homeschool laws in your state and others. HSLDA has an alert email service to all members in the USA. Vote wisely, not allowing NEA infested campaigns to take control. Pray. Even if you don't homeschool you can still be active in the fight (do you homeschool?). Thanks.
Yes, and if they do it the local district gets the same money from the state as if the kid were in school. This is the real "solution" that they have in mind. It's all about the money, as usual.
Oh brother. I have no words.
Yes and no. I homeschooled my youngest son. He now has a 2 year old (JJ) and an infant. They will both be homeschooled. We are already teaching JJ but he doesn't realize he's in school yet. lol. I used to be a member of HSLDA. I am praying for yall. My oldest son lives in Calif. and I want him also to have this option when he has children.
This sounds like the situation in the public schools, if statewide grades and college freshman remedial course attendance are any indication.
-PJ
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.