California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal

[CactusCarlos]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08030503.html

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".

The two youngest of Phillip and Mary Long's eight children must be enrolled in a state approved school. Phillip Long told WorldNetDaily, "We just don't want them teaching our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for."

Mr. Long cited the state curriculum's inclusion of sex education, including its promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. "When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.

The Los Angeles-area family was targeted by Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after one of the children reported "physical and emotional mistreatment by the children's father," according to documents submitted to the court. 

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles agreed with the trial court decision that had found, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family".

"There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting," the ruling said.

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), said in a March 3 statement that the organization "strongly disputes this interpretation of California law" and is studying the decision.

The group called the ruling "a very bad decision" saying, "the opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California."

"If the opinion is followed, then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned, because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children."

Smith added, "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."

[Rebel Yell]

Of course homeschooling should be illegal.  How else can the state indoctrinate all the children into their liberal way of thinking?  Homeschooling could promote a child to grow up to think for himself/herself.  Personally, I think there are social drawbacks to homeschooling, but the child will learn more values.  So, it's basically a wash for me.

[Flame]

That's total bullshit. 

[Splashdown]

It'll be overturned on appeal. Jeez. What is it about California? 

[Attero Dominatus]

Related.

Parents of 166,000 students
could face criminal charges
'Breathtaking' decision on homeschooling
now moving to California Supreme Court
Posted: March 05, 2008
9:11 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A "breathtaking" ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of 166,000 students in the state to criminal sanctions will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes today from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "stunning."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional homeschooling, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he said.

WND broke the story of the ruling against Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles.

(Story continues below)

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

More: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58137

[DixieBelle]

And where is the ACLU???? *eyeroll*

[Chris_]

Any chance this could go all the way to the US Supreme Court? 

[Rick]

Oh No - I have been asked to chaperon my granddaughters Home Schooling Class on their whale watching trip next week. I could be arrested.  Should I pack heat - "they" will never take me alive.

It goes to the Ninth district - yeah it will go to the SC.

[Lauri]

It'll be overturned on appeal. Jeez. What is it about California? 

they are also trying to take out all of the jargon which makes supporting Communism a no-no in their public schools.. as well as making sure K-12 kids get that pep talk about "do you want to be a boy or a girl today?" crappola..

why the teachers arent coming out in droves against this stuff just baffles me. its not a car we can decide to purchase or not and support their union... these are CHILDREN. Most people are forced to send their kids there and the rest of society is forced to pay for it!  

[Wretched Excess]

here are the judges that sit on that court.

    * Joan D. Klein, Presiding Justice
    * H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice
    * Patti S. Kitching, Associate Justice
    * Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I hope this helps somewhat...

The ruling as described would effectively end homeschooling in California, and I agree that it would be an outrageous result. Fortunately, the LA Times misunderstood the case and that misunderstanding was carried over into the discussions of the bloggers listed above, who appear to have discovered the issue because they read the LA Times article or each other. (I am amused to discover that Memeorandum has aided the dissemination of an untrue meme.)

The short version: The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.

...

The juvenile court held that even though the mothers' teaching was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,” there is a constitutional right to homeschooling (that right either belonging to the parents or to the child; it's not clear at this point). Before we go any further we should be clear that California has never recognized a constitutional right to homeschool children and no federal court has recognized a right to homeschool children. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to regulate child education because it is so crucial to the maintenance of "ordered liberty." So the juvenile court is out in left field on this point.

Under California law, attendance at a full-time day public school is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 18. Parents wanting to take their kids out of the public schools must do so under one of the exceptions provided by the California Education Code. For the purposes of home schooling they are: § 48222 Attendance in private school or § 48224 Instruction by credentialed tutor. (There are other exceptions for short-term child actors, the mentally gifted, or leaves of absence, but they are not appropriate for homeschoolers.)

So, generally, parents have three options for educating their kids in California: (1) public school; (2) private school; or (3) credentialed tutor. This is not as bad for homeschoolers as it looks. To be a private school in California, all the parent has to do is be "capable of teaching" the required subjects in the English language and offer instruction in the same "branches of study" required to be taught in the public schools. They also have to keep a register of enrollment at their "school" and a record of attendance. Once a year they have to file an affidavit with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with things like their names and address, the names of the students and their addresses, a criminal background check (since we don't want unsupervised felons teaching kids), and their attendance register. That's it.

In the Longs' case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a "valid charter school" and that the school was supervising the mothers' instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court's opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn't meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren't, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to "enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school." It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.

*Some homeschoolers attempt to twist the "independent study" provision for public school education in § 51745 into a form of generalized homeschooling and that may be what the lawyers were trying to do in this case. Unfortunately, that statute is quite explicit that independent study not take the form of an "alternative curriculum" to that provided by the public school and that it not replace any courses required for a high school diploma.

In sum: homeschoolers, TAKE A BREATH. You are not about to be criminally charged for choosing to educate your children at home, as the LA Times and the various commentators I mentioned above imply. You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren't totally incompetent. The lawyers for these parents and homeschool advocates all over the state are gleefully watching all the outrage this has stirred up, but I think they should be ashamed of themselves for terrifying the parents of homeschooled children.

We should all keep in mind that outrage is fun, but not necessarily harmless.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php

Emphasis original.

[Chris_]

Senor Lagamorph to the rescue.

Thanks for doing the deep research -- and let's see how this plays out.

[Wretched Excess]

I hope this helps somewhat...

The ruling as described would effectively end homeschooling in California, and I agree that it would be an outrageous result. Fortunately, the LA Times misunderstood the case and that misunderstanding was carried over into the discussions of the bloggers listed above, who appear to have discovered the issue because they read the LA Times article or each other. (I am amused to discover that Memeorandum has aided the dissemination of an untrue meme.)

The short version: The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.

...

The juvenile court held that even though the mothers' teaching was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,” there is a constitutional right to homeschooling (that right either belonging to the parents or to the child; it's not clear at this point). Before we go any further we should be clear that California has never recognized a constitutional right to homeschool children and no federal court has recognized a right to homeschool children. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to regulate child education because it is so crucial to the maintenance of "ordered liberty." So the juvenile court is out in left field on this point.

Under California law, attendance at a full-time day public school is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 18. Parents wanting to take their kids out of the public schools must do so under one of the exceptions provided by the California Education Code. For the purposes of home schooling they are: § 48222 Attendance in private school or § 48224 Instruction by credentialed tutor. (There are other exceptions for short-term child actors, the mentally gifted, or leaves of absence, but they are not appropriate for homeschoolers.)

So, generally, parents have three options for educating their kids in California: (1) public school; (2) private school; or (3) credentialed tutor. This is not as bad for homeschoolers as it looks. To be a private school in California, all the parent has to do is be "capable of teaching" the required subjects in the English language and offer instruction in the same "branches of study" required to be taught in the public schools. They also have to keep a register of enrollment at their "school" and a record of attendance. Once a year they have to file an affidavit with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with things like their names and address, the names of the students and their addresses, a criminal background check (since we don't want unsupervised felons teaching kids), and their attendance register. That's it.

In the Longs' case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a "valid charter school" and that the school was supervising the mothers' instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court's opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn't meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren't, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to "enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school." It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.

*Some homeschoolers attempt to twist the "independent study" provision for public school education in § 51745 into a form of generalized homeschooling and that may be what the lawyers were trying to do in this case. Unfortunately, that statute is quite explicit that independent study not take the form of an "alternative curriculum" to that provided by the public school and that it not replace any courses required for a high school diploma.

In sum: homeschoolers, TAKE A BREATH. You are not about to be criminally charged for choosing to educate your children at home, as the LA Times and the various commentators I mentioned above imply. You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren't totally incompetent. The lawyers for these parents and homeschool advocates all over the state are gleefully watching all the outrage this has stirred up, but I think they should be ashamed of themselves for terrifying the parents of homeschooled children.

We should all keep in mind that outrage is fun, but not necessarily harmless.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php

Emphasis original.

I hear ya, but it is still a statist intrusion into what was formerly considered an inviolable constitutional right.

[DixieBelle]

Why am I not surprised that the media whipped up such a frenzy???

[Lauri]

thanks for the update MSB - I sent that off to a bunch of pissed off moms just now.

this is the inherent problem with blogs... people who dont understand the law and start writing up hit pieces.

that story about communism now being taught in public school is about the changing of wording in state law; its not that much of a leap to do so, but its easy to confuse the issue.

with regards to the gay stuff; they ARE changing words in state laws and the outcome is exactly what they desire; to force the norming of homosexuality onto our kids. an article i just read here had an update on the changing of bullying laws where a woman stated: "Well, the words that were changed in the state law did give the NEA and the WEA the authority to now insert new language into classrooms. It was an unintended consequence, but the NEA and the WEA are going to use it to their benefit now."


the problem is, most of us parents dont know which words are being changed and to what effect... its hard to keep up.

[Lauri]

 in our state, if you have one year of college, you're considered to bel 'legal' to teach your own kids. but here's another update... this does look serious.

Homeschoolers' setback sends shock waves through state
Bob Egelko, Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, March 7, 2008

  (03-07) 04:00 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."

[Lauri]

another interesting comment section (almost 400 responses so far this morning)

royalblood wrote:
Just when elite universities like Stanford and Harvard are establishing special admission tracks for homeschoolers because they have figured that many of them are smarter and better educated than the public school products - along comes this ruling. I wonder why.

Posted 3/6/2008 2:59:30 PM
Recommend (249)Report Abusetenbaum wrote:
This ruling will prevent parents with advanced degrees from providing their child a better education than the public systemoffers. This ruling also excludes parents with valid out-of-state teaching credentials, as California does not offer credential reciprocity with any other state or country.

[Lauri]

hey, irrespective of nothing... but arent Tom Cruises kids homeschooled in Scientology? 

[DixieBelle]

There is a larger agenda at work here. This is a case we all need to follow....

[Wretched Excess]

There is a larger agenda at work here. This is a case we all need to follow....

it does look like the first step of a larger goal . . . .

[Lauri]

tenbaum wrote:
All of the teens you see in the time-intensive San Francisco Ballet are home-schooled. Many many kids are home-schooled for reasons other than religion.

arent most Hollywood kids homeschooled so they can film during the day?

Posted 3/6/2008 3:05:46 PM
Recommend (103)Report Abusetecumseh wrote:
This is all about money. California schools get paid by attendance and enrollment. Home schooling threatens that. So the judges appointed by Democrats beholden to public employee unions rule that they must attend school. Shocking. As for the "there's totalitarianism at religious schools, too" please explain to me how you can suffer under a totalitarian ruling at a school attended on a voluntary basis. Bay Area liberals think fascist = anything I don't like.

[DixieBelle]

^There seems to be a lot of New Agers who home school along with Fundamentalists. And of course the Hollywood crowd. It's not just one group of people with a strict set of beliefs. Homeschooling is practiced by a lot of people.

Where's the ACLU again?????

[Splashdown]

With regard to this being "all about money," doesn't California require everybody to pay taxes to their school district?

In PA, I send my daughter to Catholic school, but, of course, still kick in toward "public education."  For some reason, it surprises me that it's not like this everywhere.

[Lauri]

Dixie, people are leaving the public school's here in Seattle in record numbers. Of course, we also have schools closing and horrid mismanagement, but the actual number of kids leaving the public schools for private and homeschooling arent even known. They either wont release those numbers, or they've fallen behind in being able to do so.

Either way, they dont want the public catching on to how bad it is... so, one can assume that in California with a budget shortfall and crushing debt, they have to figure out a way to get more money into the system. Kids in chairs is one way to do it.

[Lauri]

With regard to this being "all about money," doesn't California require everybody to pay taxes to their school district?

In PA, I send my daughter to Catholic school, but, of course, still kick in toward "public education."  For some reason, it surprises me that it's not like this everywhere.

the federal govt withholds money to school districts if kids are not there. but we all still pay taxes to the state/district regardless of whether we have kids in school or not.

this is why parents get fined (per day) if their kids are truant. but if you pull a child out of school to homeschool or send them to private, that district loses money on that child.

in my state, they lose about 10k a year per child. In DC and New York, its roughly 13K per child.