
I am sorry that other matters of greater local import got in the way of posting a comment on the California homeschool decision that came down in the last couple of weeks. To refresh your memory, the California Court of Appeals ruled against a homeschooling family and used pretty breathtaking, Nazi-era language about the role of the state in education trumping the rights of parents. I use the descriptor above literally-- recall the German law outlawing homeschooling that was the subject of the Busekros case, a law that dated to the time of the Nazi regime.
A story about the decision is here. Thanks to the readers who sent it along.
Another take on the decision comes from Catholic author Deal Hudson, whose article I found on Mark Shea's blog. According to Hudson, the decision might be less harmful than originally thought.
Did California Really Ban Home Schooling?
by Deal W. Hudson
3/10/08
Reporter Bob Unruh compared the ruling to Nazi Germany: "The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth."
At first glance, it's understandable why the language of the ruling caused consternation: "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in his opinion for the Second District Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.
A Los Angeles Times article ran with the following lead:
Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.
Homeschooling parents threatened to leave California, while homeschooling organizations, such as the Home School Legal Defense Fund, vowed to see the decision overthrown on appeal.
Advocates of public education saw it differently. The president of the teachers' union in Los Angeles, A. J. Duffy, agreed with the ruling: "What's best for a child is to be taught by a credentialed teacher."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger moved quickly to quell what was becoming a grassroots rebellion. On March 7, he issued a statement calling the Second District Court ruling "outrageous." It would either be overturned by the courts, Schwarzenegger said, or "elected officials" would act to "protect parents' rights."
State Education Secretary David Long underscored the Governor's words, saying, "The governor sees this as a fundamental right of parental choice."
But the story that swept the newspapers, talk radio, and the blogs was actually based on a misunderstanding. Defendants Philip and Mary Long have eight children, who are all taught by Mrs. Long at home in Lynwood, CA. For religious reasons, the parents object to the sex and homosexuality curriculum taught in the public schools. One of their children reported physical and emotional abuse by the father, which was investigated by the Los Angeles County Department of Children's and Family Services. (This was not the first time the Longs have been investigated for abusive treatment of their children.)
The investigator discovered that all eight of the Longs' children were being homeschooled at the same time they were enrolled in a charter school, the Sunland Christian School, where they would sometimes take tests.
An attorney acting on behalf of some of the children asked the court to order them placed in public school for their benefit. The problem considered by the court was not the simple question of the legality of homeschooling, but whether, by exclusively homeschooling their children, the Longs were ignoring their arrangement with the charter school where their children were enrolled.
The children's truancy from Sunland Christian School explains the reason the court questioned the "credentials" of Mrs. Long as a teacher: "The parents present no authority to the effect that a charter school can excuse the statutory requirement that tutors be credentialed if their students are to come within the tutor exemption to compulsory public school education."
In other words, the enrollment of the Longs' children at Sunland Christian School is not a form of homeschooling and, therefore, does not fall under the exemption in the California Educational Code allowing for parents to teach their children at home.
The Longs are required to educate their children according to the statutes governing charter schools. To argue that Mrs. Long is conducting "independent study" does not excuse the students' habitual absence from classes at Sunland. The type of "independent study" allowed at charter schools "does not apply to a mother's home schooling of her children."
As a result, homeschoolers in California are not at risk under this ruling, although at first glance the language does indeed appear inflammatory. Under California law, parents who homeschool have created a "public school" where they have to be "capable of teaching" the required courses offered in public schools. Parents also have to keep a record of enrollment and attendance, as well as file a yearly "private school affidavit" with the state.
The Longs' case will undoubtedly be appealed, and following that appeal, whatever danger posed by the decision on homeschooling will be addressed. Perhaps this scare will provide opportunity and motivation for the homeschooling movement to push for legislation that will protect parents' right to educate from future rulings by activist judges.
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008).
6 comments:
It just makes me wonder how long it will take these outrageous stories/issues to make it to Missouri! God help us! Time to call HSLDA and join!
I too believe it is the right for a parent to only educate their children on creationism and old math and for that matter the earth being flat and the center of the universe. Those liberal Californians with their movies stars and free loveing homosexuals should all be burned at the stake.
Wow, it is an honor to hear from Bill McClellan!
Your scathing indictment of homeschooling is devastating!
What's funny about the anon poster is that, of course, it actually is the parent's right as a parent to teach such things if he wishes to do so.
Anon,
I talked to my homeschooled children tonight about your opinion that homeschoolers teach creationism. When asked what was meant by creationism specifically, I said, "That God created the world." To which my 11-year-old replied, "So what? He did!" So I explained to him how some people believe in the Big Bang Theory -- that the universe was created by an explosion of volatile gases and other primordial substances. To which my 14-year-old said, "Who made the gases?" and I replied, "They believe that no one created them, they just always existed." She said, "Talk about a leap of faith!"
What I fail to understand is why, if you believe that homeschoolers teach such back-woodsy folktales, that is such a threat to you? Isn't it kind of funny that homeschoolers usually win the National Geography Bee? Apparently they know more about the planet, flat or round, than other children do.
Anon, fyi, I'm no fan of homeschooling. But I am a fan of fundamental rights of individuals over meddling do-gooders or the government. Parents have the fundamental right to decide how to educate their own children. That includes the right to personally educate those children at home or send them to school, public or private. If the parents choose to personally educate their children at home, it is their right to teach evolution or creation or even that the two don't contradict. It is the parents' right to teach old or new math. It is the parents' right to teach that the earth is flat or round, centered in the universe or not.
Post a Comment