Chlling Ruling in California - Scary

[101A]

Homeschoolers' setback in appeals court ruling


Bob Egelko,Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers ([email protected])

Friday, March 7, 2008

//<![CDATA[ if (typeof window.sfg_oas_disp_x90 != &quot;undefined" && sfg_oas_disp_x90) { OAS_RICH('x90'); } //]]> &lt;SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC=&quot;http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N2998.Centro/B2630280.88;abr=!ie;sz=88x31;ord=80722889?"&gt; &lt;/SCRIPT&gt; &lt;NOSCRIPT&gt; &lt;A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2998.Centro/B2630280.88;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=88x31;ord=8072288 9?"&gt; &lt;IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2998.Centro/B2630280.88;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=88x31;ord=8072288 9?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=88 HEIGHT=31 ALT="Click Here"&gt;&lt;/A&gt; &lt;/NOSCRIPT&gt;


sfgate_get_fprefs(); (03-06) 14:26 PST LOS ANGELES --

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. "With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

"I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments."

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."

Began as child welfare case

The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

"California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

"They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers."

Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

Just so I understand: Until birth parents can choose to kill thier offspring.

After that, they don't even have the right to educate them?

Got it.

Also, can't help but wonder if California judges are elected, and how much this particular one might have received in contributions from the teacher's union.

Also, don't home-schooled children typically SMOKE their publicly-educated counterparts in standardized tests? AND this seems particularly onerous on the poorer people who choose to home-school; they simply cannot afford private school - so are left with being compelled to send their children to a system (especially in California) that they DO NOT agree with/which teaches and indoctrinates values they are completely opposed to.

Wow.

[101A]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state..."Oh holy SHIT!!!!

Seriously??

[Extra Stout]

If California liberals actually want to persecute home schoolers on religious grounds, I would be willing to travel there with weapons and contribute to the insurrection.

[Holt's Cat]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

All your kids are belong to us.

[101A]

All your kids are belong to us.Plato's Republic anyone?

[Extra Stout]

It's been a long time since Americans have had to flee a state to avoid religious persecution. I guess the last time was the Mormons in the 1800's?

Liberals will do this to Christian families because they don't think the Christians will fight back. They'd never do this to Muslims because they know the Muslims would kill them.

The bastards may be in for a surprise. If they want to tear up the social contract, they need to remember who owns the guns in this country.

[101A]

It's been a long time since Americans have had to flee a state to avoid religious persecution. I guess the last time was the Mormons in the 1800's?

Liberals will do this to Christian families because they don't think the Christians will fight back. They'd never do this to Muslims because they know the Muslims would kill them.

The bastards may be in for a surprise. If they want to tear up the social contract, they need to remember who owns the guns in this country.I think you are right.

C'mon you liberals!

Know you're out there; what's your opinion on this?

[ChumpDumper]

Also, can't help but wonder if California judges are elected, and how much this particular one might have received in contributions from the teacher's union.Croskey is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican governor.

[TheProfessor]

I'm a fairly progressive liberal, but this decision does not sit well with me. Especially "good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state" as the primary purpose of our educational system. If parents wish to home-school their children, and as long as there is a way for the state to assure that educational neglect is avoided, I have no problem with it. And I'm a proud recipient of public school education.

[101A]

Croskey is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican governor.What is your point?

[xrayzebra]

Why would anyone be surprised by this judges decision? Why!

[ChumpDumper]

The vote was 3-0; two justices were appointed by Republican governors and one by a Democrat.

Hey, there was already precedent here. It could now go to a higher court I suppose, but it's funny that nothing has been done about this in half a century.

As for home schooling itself? Just like any schooling, it's fine if the teachers aren't idiots.

[Extra Stout]

What is your point?
That he was not elected.

And it may well be that Croskey has correctly discerned that California law does not allow homeschooling. In that case, Sacramento better change that law STAT.

In this particular case, these are parents who allegedly were raising their children in an abusive and cloistered environment. They aren't exactly paragons of virtue. But legal decisions set precedents. Griswold v. Connecticut feels like the right decision in that particular case, because deep down people don't feel like a state government should have the right to regulate the sex life of a married couple, but the Supreme Court used such a dreadful, absurd argument to come to that decision that it turned American jurisprudence on its head, because it could be used as precedent to create fictitious "rights" out of thin air based upon whatever speculative "penumbra" a judge felt like fabricating that day.

Likewise, the precedent that would be estabished in this case creates free reign for any secularist zealot to bring up charges against a homeschooling family. If the law is not changed, for me it is a civil causus belli as soon as the first case is brought.

[Extra Stout]

The vote was 3-0; two justices were appointed by Republican governors and one by a Democrat.

Hey, there was already precedent here. It could now go to a higher court I suppose, but it's funny that nothing has been done about this in half a century.

As for home schooling itself? Just like any schooling, it's fine if the teachers aren't idiots.
The law was not being enforced; that's why nothing was being done to change it.

[DarkReign]

Total horsehit, I dont even know where to begin...

At what point does this fat, lazy, simple minded society agree that enough is enuogh?

Dear God, when?

[Heath Ledger]

I hear you are free to homeschool your kids in Iraq... Don't like it here get the fuck out.

[ChumpDumper]

What is your point?You asked.

Also, can't help but wonder if California judges are elected, and how much this particular one might have received in contributions from the teacher's union.If you don't want to know, don't ask. If you just want to spew innuendo and bullshit, don't whine when someone actually checks, ya big baby.

I don't know if they are all up for re-election, but the Ventura County Republicans recommend retaining the services of Justice Patti Kitching, who put her name on the decision.

[Spurminator]

No way this holds up.

[ChumpDumper]

The law was not being enforced; that's why nothing was being done to change it.So now they can change it.

Wow!

[Yonivore]

Extra Stout has already identified the remedy. If Kalifornia wants to allow homeschooling they need to pass legislation that changes the law that was rightly applied by this court.

I don't know how urgent is the problem though. Prosecutions of offending homeschoolers would require the cooperation of law enforcement, prosecutors, etc... and, in most states, these entities are given broad discretionary powers when prioritizing the criminal offenses they choose to pursue.

[Yonivore]

No way this holds up.
Why not? It appears the law is pretty specific about all children, between the ages of 6 and 18 having to be enrolled in a public or private school and taught by certified teachers.

Why won't it stand up?

[101A]

That he was not elected.

Thanks, Chump was so busy mentioning they were Republican,that I lost sight of my original question.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks, Chump was so busy mentioning they were Republican,that I lost sight of my original question.Their part affiliation speaks to their likelihood of being a recipient of teachers' union funds.

That was your original question.

[Ignignokt]

All your bulgogi are belong to us.

[Extra Stout]

Extra Stout has already identified the remedy. If Kalifornia wants to allow homeschooling they need to pass legislation that changes the law that was rightly applied by this court.

I don't know how urgent is the problem though. Prosecutions of offending homeschoolers would require the cooperation of law enforcement, prosecutors, etc... and, in most states, these entities are given broad discretionary powers when prioritizing the criminal offenses they choose to pursue.
As it is, even in states with very friendly legal arrangements towards home-schoolers, anti-religious bigots on school boards take great pleasure in harrassing parents with threats of truancy citations, until the parents hire lawyers.

In California, the anti-Christians will see this as open season. Fortunately, California allows popular referendum to change laws. This is a law that must be changed by referendum, or otherwise overturned by the courts. If it cannot be changed by those means, then by no means should California Christians submit themselves to this religious persecution. At that point, civil insurrection is appropriate. I personally WILL go out there to fight, and will encourage others to come with me.

[Extra Stout]

P.S. Big Brother, if you're reading this, come and get me, you son of a bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

Lighten up, Francis. It'll either go up the next level in the courts or a new law will come into being.

[Yonivore]

As it is, even in states with very friendly legal arrangements towards home-schoolers, anti-religious bigots on school boards take great pleasure in harrassing parents with threats of truancy citations, until the parents hire lawyers.

In California, the anti-Christians will see this as open season. Fortunately, California allows popular referendum to change laws. This is a law that must be changed by referendum, or otherwise overturned by the courts. If it cannot be changed by those means, then by no means should California Christians submit themselves to this religious persecution. At that point, civil insurrection is appropriate. I personally WILL go out there to fight, and will encourage others to come with me.
Well, have fun with that...

Myself, I won't become concerned until the ruling is based on some U. S. Constitutional principal and not confined to an enforcement of Kalifornia law.

[Holt's Cat]

So is the reason for compulsory attendance "to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state", that "students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting", or both?

[101A]

So is the reason for compulsory attendance "to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state", that "students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting", or both?"Credentialed Teachers" teaching "Patriotism"?

Counterproductive.

[braeden0613]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"
I always knew this was true...but never knew anyone had come out and said it. Seriously, screw California.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd have to see what in context that quote from 1961 was used.

Looks like it was just thrown in with all the other kind of vague musings from the past. It will be interesting to see what new specifics are developed as a result of this ruling.

[Holt's Cat]

"Credentialed Teachers" teaching "Patriotism"?

Counterproductive.

What exactly do those credentials provide? My two best HS teachers had a PhD in Geophysics and a MS in Mathematics, respectively. I lucked out as I attended what was not exactly a wealthy school district (but not a poor one). These were just individuals who apparently felt compelled to public service. I'm not sure that the level of instruction would have been any better if I had been taught by someone who only earned a BA in math and science education or whatever and was certified by the state. Or better yet, a football coach teaching a couple courses as filler during the day.

About the only rationale I see as somewhat compelling against homeschooling (though I do believe it should be legal) is the socialization argument. It is forced, of course.

[Yonivore]

I always knew this was true...but never knew anyone had come out and said it. Seriously, screw California.
It's called indoctrination and,...

"...good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation..."

...is defined by those in control of the educational system. Right now, that Left-wing liberal academia and the teachers' unions.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't like the ruling...but to teach his own.

[Extra Stout]

Lighten up, Francis.
I usually roll my eyes when I read the Michael Reagans of the world who try to tell me how Christians are sooooooo persecuted in the United States. Having secularists call us mean names is not persecution (when Jesus instructed his listeners to "turn the other cheek," it is exactly such insults and slanders he was referring to, so that insults would not escalate into violence). Not allowing Bibles to be displayed at City Hall is not persecution (not allowing Bibles in private homes, a la Saudi Arabia, is persecution).

However, using the coercive power of the state to prevent parents from teaching their children a Christian value system is bona fide persecution. I have no intention of genuflecting on that even a bit. That's where I sell my cloak to go buy a sword.

I don't think it will come anywhere close to that, because let's face it, the vast majority of liberals are of the moderate-left live-and-let-live variety, but sometimes the more aggressive secularists need to be reminded that their actions may have unpleasant personal consequences for them. There is a breaking point where people stop submitting to the rule of law.

[Extra Stout]

Well, have fun with that...

Myself, I won't become concerned until the ruling is based on some U. S. Constitutional principal and not confined to an enforcement of Kalifornia law.
Free exercise clause.

[Extra Stout]

It's called indoctrination and,...

"...good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation..."

...is defined by those in control of the educational system. Right now, that Left-wing liberal academia and the teachers' unions.
And the radical-secularist argument of course is that conservative Christianity is inimical to good citizenship.

[Holt's Cat]

And the radical-secularist argument of course is that conservative Christianity is inimical to good citizenship.

What if this occurred in, say, Mississippi? Would not an ability to opt out of the public schools full of the spawn of fundamentalists be appealing to the secularists?

[Holt's Cat]

Also, is it not interesting that apparently a goal of public education in California is to inculcate allegiance to the state and promote patriotism in the children of illegal immigrants?

Further, does not homeschooling further exacerbate growing distinctions of class in this country? Do we live in an America in which we expect to find in the average public elementary school the children of doctors, lawyers, business owners, cops, factory workers, and secretaries all in the same classroom?

[Holt's Cat]

Then, of course, we have examples such as Louisiana in which the white response to integration was simply to send their children to private schools, a practice that seems to be ongoing.

[Extra Stout]

What if this occurred in, say, Mississippi? Would not an ability to opt out of the public schools full of the spawn of fundamentalists be appealing to the secularists?
Mississippi probably goes too far the other way. Parents can home-school their children there with essentially no accountability or standards. The only requirement is that parents not claim to be home-schooling their children solely as a ruse to circumvent truancy laws.

[Holt's Cat]

Of course, we want to see the children of this country ultimately forced to attend public schools due to their overwhelming success as of late.

[Extra Stout]

Further, does not homeschooling further exacerbate growing distinctions of class in this country? Do we live in an America in which we expect to find in the average public elementary school the children of doctors, lawyers, business owners, cops, factory workers, and secretaries all in the same classroom?
What? No, since residential areas are generally segregated by socioeconomic status because of the affordability of the homes, and since the typical model for elementary school distribution is that individual schools serve their local neighboorhoods, I would surmise that elementary schools are stratified by class.

[Holt's Cat]

America has taken great strides in eliminating or at least reducing the vestiges of racism and sexism, certainly among the young. But in its place has arisen class and wealth.

[Holt's Cat]

What? No, since residential areas are generally segregated by socioeconomic status because of the affordability of the homes, and since the typical model for elementary school distribution is that individual schools serve their local neighboorhoods, I would surmise that elementary schools are stratified by class.

How about in an urban area in which young professionals live in the same school district as the proletariat? Of course, they could (and do) send their children to private schools. Homeschooling is just another option.

[Extra Stout]

Of course, we want to see the children of this country ultimately forced to attend public schools due to their overwhelming success as of late.
On average, homeschooled children meet or exceed the achievement levels of public-schooled children. However, one could argue that the lack of minimum standards allows for some homeschooled children to receive little or no education whatsoever. I question that prevalence of that situation, however, and would suggest that in the few cases it does exist, even many of those would involve membership in a fringe religious group that shuns the value of education. Existing case law sides with the fringe religious groups. I believe the definitive case involved an Amish family in Wisconsin whose homeschooling regimen omitted most modern knowledge.

So, on the merits of the educational system, the argument that homeschooling as an institution should be done away with on behalf of a miniscule fraction of children whose education does not reach minimum standards, does not stand, given how many students in the public system likewise fail to meet minimum standards and/or drop out altogether.

But you and I both know that the opposition to homeschooling has much more to do with the funding that is lost because of the head that doesn't get counted, and with the liberal-left values that don't get inculcated in the children.

[Extra Stout]

America has taken great strides in eliminating or at least reducing the vestiges of racism and sexism, certainly among the young. But in its place has arisen class and wealth.
In its place? When in American history has society not been stratified by class and wealth?

[Extra Stout]

How about in an urban area in which young professionals live in the same school district as the proletariat? Of course, they could (and do) send their children to private schools. Homeschooling is just another option.
Do you have school-age children yet? I think you're overlooking the near-universal phenomenon where young urban professionals move to the suburbs so their kids can go to better schools.

[Holt's Cat]

On average, homeschooled children meet or exceed the achievement levels of public-schooled children. However, one could argue that the lack of minimum standards allows for some homeschooled children to receive little or no education whatsoever. I question that prevalence of that situation, however, and would suggest that in the few cases it does exist, even many of those would involve membership in a fringe religious group that shuns the value of education. Existing case law sides with the fringe religious groups. I believe the definitive case involved an Amish family in Wisconsin whose homeschooling regimen omitted most modern knowledge.

So, on the merits of the educational system, the argument that homeschooling as an institution should be done away with on behalf of a miniscule fraction of children whose education does not reach minimum standards, does not stand, given how many students in the public system likewise fail to meet minimum standards and/or drop out altogether.

But you and I both know that the opposition to homeschooling has much more to do with the funding that is lost because of the head that doesn't get counted, and with the liberal-left values that don't get inculcated in the children.

Well, the second example in the article quoted at the start of the thread mentions an attorney who is homeschooling her children. A professional with the appropriate motivation (educating her own children should be sufficient) would probably do a superior job to that of what someone who majored in education could do who had responsibility for the education of 30 other children every day.

Of course, is the typical homeschooling arrangement Jethro attempting to teach 'ritin and 'rithmetilk to his offspring in his doublewide? Or is there even a typical homeschooling situation?

[Holt's Cat]

In its place? When in American history has society not been stratified by class and wealth?

Not like this. A scant 20 years ago you could find such a situation. Today, good luck.

[Holt's Cat]

Do you have school-age children yet? I think you're overlooking the near-universal phenomenon where young urban professionals move to the suburbs so their kids can go to better schools.

Screw that. I prefer living in our townhome close to downtown.

[Extra Stout]

Not like this. A scant 20 years ago you could find such a situation. Today, good luck.
1950-1990 was the anomaly, not the other way around.

[Holt's Cat]

Not at least in smaller and semi-smaller burgs.

[PixelPusher]

I think you are right.

C'mon you liberals!

Know you're out there; what's your opinion on this?
I think its a states rights issue, I don't know what all you non-Californians are so upset about. :lol

No, seriously...I disagree with the ruling wholeheartedly, even knowing that some of these homeschooled kids are taught with the Bible as their only textbook, they really aren't any worse off than the kids not learning a damn thing in the public schools here.

And I gotta laugh at that "patriotism and loyalty to the state" line...when was the last time us secular liberals were ever accused of being mindless patriots?

[u2sarajevo]

Does anyone have a link to the posted article?

I'm a father of three homeschooled children, and would like to get this information out to our homeschool association.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Though I wouldn't worry too much if you aren't in Cali.

[Extra Stout]

Of course, is the typical homeschooling arrangement Jethro attempting to teach 'ritin and 'rithmetilk to his offspring in his doublewide? Or is there even a typical homeschooling situation?
The movement is most prevalent among white, middle-class families. It is growing among black families who are sick of the poor quality of public schools, but can't afford private schools.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Though I wouldn't worry too much if you aren't in Cali.


It's like everyone else is Rosanne's husband and ChumpDumper is Rosanne and her sarcastic dry wit kids responding in tone where the voice trails of hoarsely at the end of every sentence.

[ChumpDumper]

Hmm, that particular post wasn't sarcastic. I don't know every poster's location.

[Extra Stout]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Though I wouldn't worry too much if you aren't in Cali.


If you aren't personally affected by repression today, don't worry about it.

[ChumpDumper]

I actually wouldn't be too worried about it in California either. Home schooling is here (and there) to stay.

[spurster]

It appears that this is one of those laws that the government can get you for if they don't like you for some other reason. In this case, the state appears to have a good reason (that there wasn't really much homeschooling going on in this case), but it's still a bad law.

[boutons_]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"

Holy fucking shit, out and out, unmitigated fascism.

Institutions, corps, and govt Uber Alles.
der Hitlerjugend.

On whose side would have been today's brown-shirted schoolkids when the American colonial insurgents expelled the King and his Redcoats?

[101A]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"

Holy fucking shit, out and out, unmitigated fascism.

Institutions, corps, and govt (don't forget the Unions, B) Uber Alles.
der Hitlerjugend.

On whose side would have been today's brown-shirted schoolkids when the American colonial insurgents expelled the King and his Redcoats?
Finally somebody uses a Fascism reference correctly!

[SAGambler]

Total horsehit, I dont even know where to begin...

At what point does this fat, lazy, simple minded society agree that enough is enuogh?

Dear God, when?

When they can find time from taking their daily doses of meds to realize they are soon to be cradle to gravers.

[FromWayDowntown]

From a jurisprudential standpoint, I don't understand the criticism of the result. Without digging too deeply, it would certainly appear that the California court simply followed the law -- the result is the result that the law dictates. Those who are upset with the court's decision and wish that it were different are, essentially (I think), advocating for the very judicial activism that so many complain about.

It would seem to further my argument that judicial activism is hardly just a "liberal" issue.

[101A]

From a jurisprudential standpoint, I don't understand the criticism of the result. Without digging too deeply, it would certainly appear that the California court simply followed the law -- the result is the result that the law dictates. Those who are upset with the court's decision and wish that it were different are, essentially (I think), advocating for the very judicial activism that so many complain about.

It would seem to further my argument that judicial activism is hardly just a "liberal" issue.I think we've figured out the judges did what they had to do over the past 3 pages. However, it doesn't lessen the shock of actually seeing what the law dictates in print (and NOW being enforced).

[spurster]

I hope all the Texans are remembering that Texas schools are required to say the Texas pledge. California doesn't have all the nuts.

[101A]

Or,

If all of a sudden, lawmen started arresting, and judges started sentencing individuals for violating the various states sodomy laws...wouldn't there be an outcry? Would the judges be immune to it - and left off the hook by the sodomites (no prejudice there; just using the appropriate word - all orientations can, and do, violate those laws)?

[PixelPusher]

I hope all the Texans are remembering that Texas schools are required to say the Texas pledge. California doesn't have all the nuts.
(....loyalty to the state...)

[101A]

I hope all the Texans are remembering that Texas schools are required to say the Texas pledge. California doesn't have all the nuts.Yeah, but you can home-school in Texas (that's the point).

You REALLY don't want to get into a discussion of which school code has the more crazy mandates on it.

[101A]

(....loyalty to the state...)
^^^

[FromWayDowntown]

I think we've figured out the judges did what they had to do over the past 3 pages. However, it doesn't lessen the shock of actually seeing what the law dictates in print (and NOW being enforced).

Right, and as you seem to recognize, that result is not on the judges. In a world where judges are frequently (and often, erroneously) charged with activism, here's an instance where there is no activism. Nobody, however, seems willing to applaud the judges for actually applying the law.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ ES stance change in this thread. Wow dude, that shit was sure quick.




If California liberals actually want to persecute home schoolers on religious grounds, I would be willing to travel there with weapons and contribute to the insurrection.

Stupid liberals! WAR ON THE LIBERALS!


It's been a long time since Americans have had to flee a state to avoid religious persecution. I guess the last time was the Mormons in the 1800's?

Liberals will do this to Christian families because they don't think the Christians will fight back. They'd never do this to Muslims because they know the Muslims would kill them.

The bastards may be in for a surprise. If they want to tear up the social contract, they need to remember who owns the guns in this country.

GOD DAMN IT WAR ON THOSE LIBERALS!

Then Chump says:


Croskey is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican governor.

And then ES says:



And it may well be that Croskey has correctly discerned that California law does not allow homeschooling. In that case, Sacramento better change that law STAT.

Shit! Its not liberals, cancel the war.

[MannyIsGod]

Right, and as you seem to recognize, that result is not on the judges. In a world where judges are frequently (and often, erroneously) charged with activism, here's an instance where there is no activism. Nobody, however, seems willing to applaud the judges for actually applying the law.Americans are too stupid (and lazy) to understand how their government works.

[Extra Stout]

:lmao @ ES stance change in this thread. Wow dude, that shit was sure quick.



Stupid liberals! WAR ON THE LIBERALS!



GOD DAMN IT WAR ON THOSE LIBERALS!

Then Chump says:



And then ES says:



Shit! Its not liberals, cancel the war.
Oh no, the first time a school administrator tries to enforce that law, the war is still on.

[PixelPusher]

^^^
Texas beats the crap out of California at teaching "loyalty to the state".

[Extra Stout]

Or,

If all of a sudden, lawmen started arresting, and judges started sentencing individuals for violating the various states sodomy laws...wouldn't there be an outcry? Would the judges be immune to it - and left off the hook by the sodomites (no prejudice there; just using the appropriate word - all orientations can, and do, violate those laws)?
Well, that actually happened, in Texas of all places, and the sodomites fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. So those laws are null and void.

[Extra Stout]

On whose side would have been today's brown-shirted schoolkids when the American colonial insurgents expelled the King and his Redcoats?
Why would they take sides? Colonial Idol is on.

[boutons_]

"... chief concern was not the quality of the children's education :lol :lol, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety." "

safety? in the kids own homes?
kids are safer in school than they are at home?

What about conventionally schooled kids when they go home after school? Who assures their safety then? (don't worry, they're working on it)

Why do they need to be "observed" at school or at home. You know the kind of middle-aged, unemployable fat fucks (like TSA gate staff) hired for school security won't defend anyone from anything.

All terra, all the time. America has turned into a gangs of bureaucratized fascistic, paranoid bullies frightened by their own shadows.

[Extra Stout]

"... chief concern was not the quality of the children's education :lol :lol, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety." "

safety? in the kids own homes?
kids are safer in school than they are at home?

What about conventionally schooled kids when they go home after school? Who assures their safety then? (don't worry, they're working on it)

Why do they need to be "observed" at school or at home. You know the kind of middle-aged, unemployable fat fucks (like TSA gate staff) hired for school security won't defend anyone from anything.

All terra, all the time. America has turned into a gangs of bureaucratized fascistic, paranoid bullies frightened by their own shadows.
The default assumption by the state is that you are abusing your children until they verify otherwise.

[Holt's Cat]

"... chief concern was not the quality of the children's education :lol :lol, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety." "

safety? in the kids own homes?
kids are safer in school than they are at home?

What about conventionally schooled kids when they go home after school? Who assures their safety then? (don't worry, they're working on it)

Why do they need to be "observed" at school or at home. You know the kind of middle-aged, unemployable fat fucks (like TSA gate staff) hired for school security won't defend anyone from anything.

All terra, all the time. America has turned into a gangs of bureaucratized fascistic, paranoid bullies frightened by their own shadows.


Damn. You must hate, well, everyone.

[Extra Stout]

Damn. You must hate, well, everyone.
At least he's bipartisan about it.

[Holt's Cat]

The default assumption by the state is that you are abusing your children until they verify otherwise.

I know of someone who had CPS called on himself and his wife due to a disagreement his wife had at her workplace. CPS showed up at their house and interviewed their children without their parents present. Eventually the person who called in the retaliatory fake report was sent to the big house.

Still, you aren't your child's parent. It's just like your house. Think you own it? Don't pay your property taxes and see what happens.

[Wild Cobra]

I hope this gets settled properly. We already have too many lemmings in the USA.

[Guru of Nothing]

As it is, even in states with very friendly legal arrangements towards home-schoolers, anti-religious bigots on school boards take great pleasure in harrassing parents with threats of truancy citations, until the parents hire lawyers.

In California, the anti-Christians will see this as open season. Fortunately, California allows popular referendum to change laws. This is a law that must be changed by referendum, or otherwise overturned by the courts. If it cannot be changed by those means, then by no means should California Christians submit themselves to this religious persecution. At that point, civil insurrection is appropriate. I personally WILL go out there to fight, and will encourage others to come with me.

b6xtXqL8uw4

[T Park]

To think that Arnold, or his buddies that he appoints are true conservative republicans is laughable.

They are independant leftist politicians. By far and away.

[Purple & Gold]

As it is, even in states with very friendly legal arrangements towards home-schoolers, anti-religious bigots on school boards take great pleasure in harrassing parents with threats of truancy citations, until the parents hire lawyers.

In California, the anti-Christians will see this as open season. Fortunately, California allows popular referendum to change laws. This is a law that must be changed by referendum, or otherwise overturned by the courts. If it cannot be changed by those means, then by no means should California Christians submit themselves to this religious persecution. At that point, civil insurrection is appropriate. I personally WILL go out there to fight, and will encourage others to come with me.

WTF are you talking about?? :drunk :drunk



Religious persecution?? Are you serious?? Talk about taking something and running with it. All this has to do is that the State of California doesn't want any type of idiot saying they are homeschooling their children. It has more to do with monitoring the teachers and making sure they aren't just anybody without any formal training. While many of the homeschool parents/teachers are very good, there are a lot that are not good at all. The students have a right to a proper education and if this means that their parents/teachers need to take classes and become certified than that's what needs to happen. The State should make it easier for those who wish to homeschool their children to take classes and become certified. I see nothing wrong with making sure parents/teachers have some type of training.

And as many people have told you the judges are just upholding an already written law. If the people want to change it then fine, they can put it on the ballot.

[BradLohaus]

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

If that's the case then I don't know why Big Brother let's anybody homeschool.

And Arnold has come out against the ruling.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58298

This coming from the guy who signed bills like this:
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

[BradLohaus]

If that's the case then I don't know why Big Brother let's anybody homeschool.
I guess he's got Homeland Security working on that:

Michigan School District Portrays Homeschoolers as "Terrorists"
http://www.home-school.com/news/terrorists.html

On Monday, September 20, the Muskegon Chronicle in Michigan reported on a "mock attack" on public school bus to test terrorism response.

According to the paper, the exercise was a simulated "attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled."

Today, these homeschool "terrorists," in a simulated attack, struck a busload of students in the Whitehall area killing more than a half-dozen and sending dozens more to hospitals. Although the attack was not real, it looked real and the students, emergency room personnel and firefighters responded as if it was real.

The exercise was funded by federal homeland security grants awarded to several area school districts and Muskegon County, Michigan.

The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District partnered with the Muskegon County Emergency Services to implement the mock terrorist attack.

According to the Muskegon Chronicle, the exercise was a simulated "attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled."

Eight or nine deceased students, represented by mannequins, were transported to the county morgue.

Frantic parents ran to the schools and hospital emergency rooms.

[Phenomanul]

WTF are you talking about?? :drunk :drunk

Religious persecution?? Are you serious?? Talk about taking something and running with it. All this has to do is that the State of California doesn't want any type of idiot saying they are homeschooling their children. It has more to do with monitoring the teachers and making sure they aren't just anybody without any formal training. While many of the homeschool parents/teachers are very good, there are a lot that are not good at all. The students have a right to a proper education and if this means that their parents/teachers need to take classes and become certified than that's what needs to happen. The State should make it easier for those who wish to homeschool their children to take classes and become certified. I see nothing wrong with making sure parents/teachers have some type of training.

And as many people have told you the judges are just upholding an already written law. If the people want to change it then fine, they can put it on the ballot.

Because in this case the actions of a few are doing a dis-service to a greater good. Have you not heard? Academically speaking, homeschoolers do as well or better than their public school peers. I can almost guarantee that more than half of those parents are not certified with the state as licensed instructors. So now you are forcefully trying to impose that additional financial burden on them? You know how much that costs, in terms of processing fees, exams, and renewals?

What's worse is that most homeschooling parents have already conceded on the 'public-school tax' issue.... They were paying up.

Read below:


The default assumption by the state is that you are abusing your children until they verify otherwise.

[Extra Stout]

WTF are you talking about?? :drunk :drunk



Religious persecution?? Are you serious?? Talk about taking something and running with it. All this has to do is that the State of California doesn't want any type of idiot saying they are homeschooling their children.
:rolleyes What difference is it what the "State of California" wants? This ruling goes against the desires of the State Department of Education in the first place. What, do all bureaucrats monolithically follow the enlightened desires of Great Socialist Leader without abusing power or following their own agendas? In what world does that happen? Is that why you people think that system would work?

What this does is arm the petty left-wing school administrators that hate Christians to go after them. I've seen this happen in red-state yee-haw praise-Jesus Houston, Texas. Don't tell me it doesn't happen in freaking California.

The state DoE had outlined four legal means parents could homeschool their children. This ruling strikes down two of them. Nobody saw it coming. Those families are vulnerable.


It has more to do with monitoring the teachers and making sure they aren't just anybody without any formal training. While many of the homeschool parents/teachers are very good, there are a lot that are not good at all. The students have a right to a proper education and if this means that their parents/teachers need to take classes and become certified than that's what needs to happen.
California law with regard to the certification of private school teachers already disagrees with you. And the idea that parents need some kind of formal training is totally absurd. I know people who homeschool. If you're competent enough to get an associate's degree, much less a bachelor's, you're competent enough to homeschool your children, unless you have like twelve of them at once. The resources availble for parents to put together curricula and plan lessons are vast.

If we're going to argue that the presence of some incompetent homeschool teachers, or some bad results among a small fraction of homeschooled invalidates the whole scheme, well I guess we should do with public education too, since it has more than its fair share of incompetent educators and students who don't learn.


The State should make it easier for those who wish to homeschool their children to take classes and become certified. I see nothing wrong with making sure parents/teachers have some type of training.
Oh, God, another government program. What, have you socialists figured out a way to make days longer than 24 hours so parents can fit in all this new training? This isn't rocket science. The bar of mental competence isn't that high, and if parents are making the decision to do this in the first place, they already are more motivated to do a good job than a significant fraction of professional educators who just show up to collect a paycheck.


And as many people have told you the judges are just upholding an already written law. If the people want to change it then fine, they can put it on the ballot.
Since California allows referendum, those affected would be negligent not to protect their own interests by getting this on the ballot (Ahnold has already committed to getting this changed). Neither do I think that outside the Bay Area there are all that many Californians opposed to homeschooling, so it's unlikely a ballot initiative to legalize it more explicitly would fail. As I've already mentioned, most people on the left are more in the "whatever, live and let live" category than the "religion is a plague and the state needs to cure it" group.

But I don't have any problem whatsoever with threatening the latter group with physical harm when they actually start acting on those beliefs.

[Holt's Cat]

Since public schools have done such a swell job at educating the nation's young, they should be allowed to maintain a local monopoly on K-12 education. Or is it the reverse?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

This thread is schizophrenic-- trying to read the musings of holt cat and extra stout and create a consistent narrative here is like attempting to generate a cohesive image from a jackson polluck

[Holt's Cat]

I'm sorry. I wasn't writing to compensate for your stupidity.

[FromWayDowntown]

To think that Arnold, or his buddies that he appoints are true conservative republicans is laughable.

They are independant leftist politicians. By far and away.

My point from earlier in this thread stands: judges follow the existing law, even though it creates a potentially disfavorable result, and are derided (at least by some) as activists.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'm sorry. I wasn't writing to compensate for your stupidity.

It's not my fault page 2 of this thread makes James Joyce seen coherent

[Holt's Cat]

You are searching for a "coherent" expository in a discussion on an internet message board. Again, I had no idea it was required to provide such an essay for you.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

You are searching for a "coherent" expository in a discussion on an internet message board. Again, I had no idea it was required to provide such an essay for you.

Conceded.

I was remarking more on my inability to figure out your point of view.

[Holt's Cat]

I believe that parents should be able to homeschool their children in California without having the credentials that are required of teachers in the state of California. Obviously that requires a change in statute, and the court merely followed the existing statute plus the relevant case law. In addition, I have doubts about the value of those credentials as it relates to an individual's ability to provide quality instruction in a public school.

[ChumpDumper]

If you're competent enough to get an associate's degree, much less a bachelor's, you're competent enough to homeschool your childrenSo an associate's degree is enough? You would accept that as a prerequisite for homechooling?

[Purple & Gold]

:rolleyes What difference is it what the "State of California" wants? This ruling goes against the desires of the State Department of Education in the first place. What, do all bureaucrats monolithically follow the enlightened desires of Great Socialist Leader without abusing power or following their own agendas? In what world does that happen? Is that why you people think that system would work?

Wait are you a Repub or not? I thought the "people's will" was a main issue with conservatives. The law in the State of California states that they don't want just anybody saying "I'm gonna homeschool my child". This is not a new law, if the people want it changed they can flex their power and get it changed. They just want some type of accountability and training from them. I don't know how this is some type of "Great Socialist Leader" deal, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make it one.


What this does is arm the petty left-wing school administrators that hate Christians to go after them. I've seen this happen in red-state yee-haw praise-Jesus Houston, Texas. Don't tell me it doesn't happen in freaking California.

I honestly have no idea about what you're talking about. Again to make this into some sort of persecution against Christians is more than just a stretch. It's downright paranoid.


The state DoE had outlined four legal means parents could homeschool their children. This ruling strikes down two of them. Nobody saw it coming. Those families are vulnerable.

I agree those famalies are vulnerable because this was a law that was hardly enforced. Now I doubt they're gonna start retroactively arresting those parents for contributing to delinquency or truancy. Now if they do start doing that, then my opinion will change on that matter. There will be some deep looking at this law and revising and updating it as need be.


California law with regard to the certification of private school teachers already disagrees with you. And the idea that parents need some kind of formal training is totally absurd. I know people who homeschool. If you're competent enough to get an associate's degree, much less a bachelor's, you're competent enough to homeschool your children, unless you have like twelve of them at once. The resources availble for parents to put together curricula and plan lessons are vast.

While the amount of schooling or training that is needed is up for debate, I don't think you can really say that anybody that has an associate's or bachelor's is competent enough to homeschool their children. The focus should be in the Education field and as we all know you can get an associates or a bachelors without having to take any Education/Child Development/etc. type classes.


If we're going to argue that the presence of some incompetent homeschool teachers, or some bad results among a small fraction of homeschooled invalidates the whole scheme, well I guess we should do with public education too, since it has more than its fair share of incompetent educators and students who don't learn.

Again this has nothing to do with "a small fraction" of incompetent homeschool teachers. First off I'd like to see how you got this "small fraction" and the issue is the fact that the children deserve a quality education. If this is best serviced at the home then fine, but there shouldn't be any complaining about them having to take classes and put themselves in some type of state program. If they are so concerned for their childs education, then I don't see why it would be such a "pain" for them to do something that would benefit them and their children. You would think they would be all for anything that would help their children.


Oh, God, another government program. What, have you socialists figured out a way to make days longer than 24 hours so parents can fit in all this new training? This isn't rocket science. The bar of mental competence isn't that high, and if parents are making the decision to do this in the first place, they already are more motivated to do a good job than a significant fraction of professional educators who just show up to collect a paycheck.

So now we get to the real heart of the issue. Another government program. It's ironic how the repubs are the ones always talking about less government, but they are really the ones that are in favor of more government (patriot acts). Kind of of like how they always say they are the more fiscal responsible ones, but yet are the ones that run up debt like no other and putting our economy in a shithole.

And I think it's funny how you've come to the conclusion that since they want to homeschool their children then they will do a better job then a significant fraction of professional educators. Please show me the link to that one as well. :drunk


Since California allows referendum, those affected would be negligent not to protect their own interests by getting this on the ballot (Ahnold has already committed to getting this changed). Neither do I think that outside the Bay Area there are all that many Californians opposed to homeschooling, so it's unlikely a ballot initiative to legalize it more explicitly would fail. As I've already mentioned, most people on the left are more in the "whatever, live and let live" category than the "religion is a plague and the state needs to cure it" group.

But I don't have any problem whatsoever with threatening the latter group with physical harm when they actually start acting on those beliefs.

Yes I agree, it probably won't be a problem. Most people are fine with homeschooling and don't see it as a problem. Clarification on what exactly is needed to be certified will be a good thing.

And I really have no idea about this leftist "religion is a plague and the state needs to cure it" group. I honestly think you're a bit delusional and very much paranoid when it comes to this issue.

[Purple & Gold]

I believe that parents should be able to homeschool their children in California without having the credentials that are required of teachers in the state of California. Obviously that requires a change in statute, and the court merely followed the existing statute plus the relevant case law. In addition, I have doubts about the value of those credentials as it relates to an individual's ability to provide quality instruction in a public school.

I'm sure those credentials will be revalued and won't be the same as a teacher needs. A lot of revision and a closer look will be needed with this law.