Page 5:

In this dependency case, we consider the legality of, and restraints upon, home schooling in California.1 We will conclude that: (1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent.   [underlining added]

Fyi, “dependency” in this context, means that a child has been the subject of an abuse case and was found to be in need of supervision, protection, or care other than that given by the parent.   For the purposes of this ruling, the reference to a child who has been declared ”dependent” does not mean merely a minor child. 

Stay tuned for commentary.

Case that led to Calif. home school ban dismissed, 12 July 2008, San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, California

I can’t quote the article because it’s from the Associated Press, and they’re very fussy (and therefore, no fair use = no link).  I guess that the A.P. didn’t know that there was no outright ban in the first place, and that the decision was vacated in the second place?

In any case, the judge in the family court in which the abuse case of the Long family was heard, has terminated the jurisdiction because of delays of the regular six-month reviews of the situation.  No word yet on how this termination will affect the appeal. 

Tammy, a Californian, has these comments:

California Juvenile Court Drops Out of Homeschooling Case, 11 July 2008, Just Enough, and Nothing More

Right now, the three state-wide homeschooling groups are remaining quiet. In an unofficial email sent out to one of the groups, it was made clear that the reason that they are quiet, is because they cannot be certain what this means for the case, despite Mike Farris’ confidence. Just as with everything that has happened thus far, there are many possible outcomes.

For now, don’t pop open the champagne. On the surface, this looks like a positive development for the homeschooling angle of the case. But we still can’t be sure.

Search at Thomas, if interested.  At this point, any information about these resolutions seems to be of the order of “fyi.”  NewsComm is a day late and a dollar short in reporting this, but the NewsComm staff (me, 2 cats and the granddog) just didn’t catch it at the time.  Hat tip to Mary, whose staff is Mary and the spirit of her late-beloved pooch Reba.

House Resolution 1076 was introduced 3 April 2008 by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-California).  The resolution has 56 co-sponsors.  The actions have been:

• 4/3/2008: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Senate Resolution 572 was introduced May 21, 2008 by Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), and co-sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma).  So far, the resolution is still in committee:  “Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.”

Both resolutions have near-identical language, with the only difference that I saw being that the Senate version calls specifically upon the Court of Appeal in California’s Second District, while the House version “calls upon the courts.”

The Senate version follows:

Title: A resolution calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

RESOLUTION Calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Whereas the modern homeschool movement in the United States demonstrates that homeschooled children are a vital component of the United States education system;

Whereas homeschool graduates act responsibly as parents and as students in colleges and universities, are valuable in the workplace, and are productive citizens in society at large;

Whereas many studies confirm that children who are educated at home score considerably above the national average on nationally-normed achievement tests, and above the average on both the SAT and ACT college entrance exams;

Whereas homeschooled children, such as 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, are receiving national recognition for their victories in national competitions, such as national spelling bees and geography bees, and are being highly sought after by nationally-recognized colleges and universities;

Whereas homeschooling families contribute significantly to the cultural diversity important to a healthy society;

Whereas notable individuals such as Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, Ansel Adams, Charles Dickens, and General Douglas MacArthur all received a high-quality education at home;

Whereas over 2,100,000 children are being homeschooled nationwide;

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, in the cases of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);

Whereas on February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, issued an opinion in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), that homeschool parents who did not hold a teaching credential could not legally homeschool their children;

Whereas the initial decision by the Court of Appeal in that case would have had an adverse impact on approximately 166,000 children in California who are receiving a quality education at home; and

Whereas on March 25, 2008, the Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case, with respect to the decision that required parents to hold a teaching credential in order to legally homeschool their children: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate–

(1) commends the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, for allowing a rehearing in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); and

(2) calls upon the court to uphold the Supreme Court’s opinion that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Home-schooling in court, 23 June 2008, San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, California

The 2nd District Court of Appeal will hear arguments in a legal fight over whether parents who home-school their children must have teaching credentials. The same appeals court earlier this year sent shock waves through the nation’s home-schooling movement, finding that parents who lack teaching credentials are violating California’s compulsory-education laws if they home-school their children.

…

The appeals court has 90 days to rule, which would result in a decision sometime around the start of the next school year. The California Supreme Court may still have the last word in the case.

I caught a glimpse of this somewhere else the other day (too many articles, too little time), and now I’m catching up with the news alert backlog. 

The op/ed is a scathing take on the point of view that homeschooling must be regulated.

Drooling Home-Schooling Ruling, 18 June 2008, River Cities Reader, Davenport, Iowa

“Cindy Kayshan of the Sacramento BeeEss. How is home-schooling a threat to our economy?”

“Forced government schooling justifies property taxes. Property taxes for schools are vital to our economy because they fill the pockets of the school-construction industry and the textbook-publishing industry and the school-lunch-program food-processing industry and the school-bus-fleet sales industry and the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder pharmaceutical industry and the state teacher-training and -credentialing industry, to name just a few.

Home schooling thrives with current guidelines, 10 June 2008, Modesto Bee, Modesto, California

When a child reported physical and emotional mistreatment at home, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services investigated. As part of the inquiry, officials found that the children were being home- schooled by the mother through an independent study arrangement with a private school. They asked the courts to order that the children be enrolled in and attend a public or private school.

…

The court noted that nothing in the Education Code “provides for parents teaching their children by ‘independent study’ through private schools.” And that is the position of the California Department of Education as well. The law does not address the mother’s “independent study” arrangement with Sunland Christian School.

The support network, HomeSchool Association of California, has issued a summary of the In re Rachel L. situation.

Summary of the Case, “In re Rachel L. et al”

In February 2008, an appellate court in Los Angeles issued a decision that interpreted California’s education laws in a way that was very unfavorable to homeschoolers.

Unlike many states, California does not have any laws specifically authorizing or regulating homeschooling.  Like several other states whose laws do not mention homeschooling, California does have laws that say that children can meet the state’s compulsory attendance laws by going to private schools.  Homeschoolers in California, like homeschoolers in those other states, complied with the compulsory attendance laws by enrolling their children in private schools that permitted teaching at home, and these schools could be ones operated by third parties or ones established by the parents themselves for their own children.

This manner of homeschooling was not, as many in the press have portrayed it, a “loophole”.  California law does not have many regulations pertaining to private schools, and the ones that it does have can be met by parents forming their own schools and by schools that support homeschooling.  The state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, was aware of this interpretation of law, and agreed that it was permissible.

The appellate court, however, stated in its February opinion that it did not believe that private schools could permit homeschooling.  The judges seemed to think that the state legislature had clearly thought about homeschooling when it passed the private school laws and had decided that the only way to teach children at home was under a separate statute about tutoring, which requires a state teaching credential.  The court, of course, could not change a law or pass a new law; only the legislature could do that.  But it was interpreting the law in an unfavorable way.

The Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and all of the statewide homeschool support groups have gone on record as stating that the court’s interpretation was incorrect.  The statewide groups were preparing to appeal to the state Supreme Court for help in rectifying the situation, but in late March, the appellate court decided to rehear the case itself.

By court rules, whenever a court agrees to rehear a case, the opinion that it wrote the first time around is vacated, and of no further force or effect.  What that means is that the original decision with its unfavorable interpretation of law has gone away, and no judge or government official will be able to take action using that opinion as authority.  State law about homeschooling is now exactly the same as it was prior to the issuance of the February opinion.  The Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the various statewide homeschool groups believe that the interpretation prior to that decision was legally correct, and homeschoolers can continue to teach their children at home in reliance on the law as previously understood.

The appellate court will hold a new hearing on the matter this summer. All of the statewide groups are, with the assistance of pro bono counsel, filing amicus briefs in support of the prior interpretation of law.  A new decision is expected this fall.

We believe that the legislature is waiting to see what happens in the court system before taking any action.  It is quite probable that if the court’s new decision does not change the interpretation of law that was in place prior to its original decision, the legislature will not take any action, as the Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction are both accepting and even supportive of that interpretation.

Debbie Schwarzer
Co-chair Legal Team
Legislative Chair
HomeSchool Association of California

Other opinions from HSC on the situation are available from the HSC website.

John Stossel throws his typewriter in the ring.

Threat to homeschooling, 2 April 2008, Real Clear Politics, Chicago, Illinois

The cat is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren “in loyalty to the state.” …

Last week, the appellate court surprised everyone by agreeing to rehear the case. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the judges “hinted at a re-evaluation of its entire Feb. 28 ruling by inviting written arguments from state and local education officials and teachers’ unions”.

On top of that, state Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell says he thinks homeschooling is legal and favors choice in education.

That’s reasonable news. But why is education the business of government? It’s taken for granted that the state is every child’s ultimate parent, but there’s no justification for that in a free society. Parents may not be perfect — some are pretty bad — but a cold, faceless bureaucracy is no better.

More commentary from lots of people who don’t homeschool about the few that do.

California Reeling, 29 March 2008, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia

Locally, home-schooling parents worry about the copy cat effect. States who see what has transpired in California might get bright ideas to adopt similar credential mandates, said Hermitt, a married mom who home-schools Jordan and Jackson.

“It might cause a ripple effect,” she said.

…

The California ruling goes against the grain of parental responsibility. Mom and dad are supposed to be a child’s first teacher, whether they home-school or not.

The ruling appears even more absurd when you take education out the equation and apply it to other parental roles. Basically, it would mean that I can’t teach my son how to grill jerk chicken because I’m not a chef. I can’t teach my daughter how to parallel park because I’m not a certified driving instructor.

  

Gist of comments:

– ‘someone’ needs to make sure homeschooling parents are teaching their kids, not beating them
– probably not all homeschooling parents do thorough research about teaching their own children
– fundamentalists will brainwash their children
– anyone who has children is too stupid to teach anyone
– cashing in on the homeschooling craze
– homeschooled children aren’t under the eye of a bureaucracy
– accreditation needed to ensure standards
– another ad that seems to follow any California ruling report
– more accountability for everyone in Georgia because private schools do not require teacher certification, either
– why should only public school students be entitled to testing standards?
– everyone from teachers to kids should be tested every year
– test scores of homeschooled kids higher than that of the average public school student
– abolish the Department of Education
– California case mis-combined homeschooling with child abuse
– California’s legal system is a mess

  

Certifying Parents, 22 March 2008, Wall Street Journal, New York, New York

The case was initiated by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services after a home-schooled child reportedly complained of physical abuse by his father. A lawyer assigned to two of the family’s eight children invoked the truancy law to get the children enrolled in a public school and away from their parents. So a single case of parental abuse is being used to promote the registration of all parents who crack a book for their kids. If this strikes some readers as a tad East German, we know how you feel.

  

Bureaucracy Closes In On Parents Who Are Home-School Teachers, letters, 29 March 2008, Wall Street Journal

Regarding your March 22 editorial “Certifying Parents” criticizing the California court that ruled that parents cannot “home school” their children without government certification: I am conservative enough to reflexively balk at most attempts by government to force fiat compliance. Yet I have no such dread of requiring some standard of excellence for anyone seeking to teach, regardless of their venue.

  

“Certifying Parents” aptly describes the failure of California’s public-schooling monopoly, and why so many parents want out. Thanks to a handful of State Assembly members, a record-setting five parental choice bills are being introduced this legislative session. This is the first time in six years that any such legislation has been introduced in the Golden State, and thus far California leads the nation for the most parental choice bills introduced this year.

  

The second question asks: Does the state have a more compelling interest than parents in the education of children? Again, the answer is clearly “no.” Although a well-educated citizenry is in our society’s best interests, professional educators face little accountability and few compelling deadlines when their efforts fail to produce satisfactory results. Schools will always have next year’s students to “fix” what ails them. Indeed, this has been their approach for the past three decades. Parents do not share this luxury; in each child there is only a very small, finite period of time in which to achieve results.