Reply With Quote
Oh holy !!!!"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state..."
Seriously??
Just so I understand: Until birth parents can choose to kill thier offspring.Homeschoolers' setback in appeals court ruling
Bob Egelko,Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, March 7, 2008
//<![CDATA[ if (typeof window.sfg_oas_disp_x90 != "undefined" && sfg_oas_disp_x90) { OAS_RICH('x90'); } //]]> <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N2998.Centro/B2630280.88;abr=!ie;sz=88x31;ord=80722889?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2998.Centro/B2630280.88;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=88x31;ord=8072288 9?"> <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"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
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 cons utional 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 Ins ute, 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 ins ution "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."
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.
Oh holy !!!!"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state..."
Seriously??
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.
All your kids are belong to us."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.
Plato's Republic anyone?
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 bas s 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?
Croskey is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican governor.
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.
What is your point?
Why would anyone be surprised by this judges decision? Why!
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.
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 fic ious "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.
The law was not being enforced; that's why nothing was being done to change it.
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?
I hear you are free to homeschool your kids in Iraq... Don't like it here get the out.
You asked.
If you don't want to know, don't ask. If you just want to spew innuendo and bull , 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.
No way this holds up.
So now they can change it.
Wow!
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 en ies are given broad discretionary powers when prioritizing the criminal offenses they choose to pursue.
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?
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
