Homeschooling in California

[Bricker]

A California appellate court recently reached a decision that will, if upheld, severely eviscerate the ability of California parents to home-school their children. The decision says that every school-age child must either attend a public full-time day school, be enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attending that private school, or be tutored by a person holding a valid California state teaching credential for the grade being taught.

Parents Jonathan and Mary Grace L. challenged the law, seeking a finding that they had a constitutional right to home-school their children. The court disagreed.

I find the distinction interesting, especially when you consider that in California, a "private full-time day school" may use teahcers that do not hold valid California state teaching credentials. But I'm not prepared to say that the court is wrong.

Comments?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Requiring education as the state sees fit is a valid exercise of the state's police power. I can think of plenty of rational reasons to draw a distinction between a private school and a home.

Parents Jonathan and Mary Grace L. challenged the law, seeking a finding that they had a constitutional right to home-school their children. The court disagreed.

I do not like courts creating rights. I see no reason to extend a right (parental rights) that is not even in the Constitution.

[Simplicio]

I do not like courts creating rights. I see no reason to extend a right (parental rights) that is not even in the Constitution.

Actually, the SCOTUS has found such a right in the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters), and the CA court agreed such a right exists, but that CA can still regulate homeschooling.

Here's a discussion (http://www.nheld.com/BTN60.htm) of the CA case (with a link to the opinion). It argues that the decision is unlikely to mean an end to homeschooling in CA. I imagine they're correct, I suspect this will just lead to the legislature allowing parents to register as "private schools" with some minimum of State oversight (which as I understand it, is pretty much how homeschooling is done in CA now anyways).

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Actually, the SCOTUS has found such a right in the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters)

I aware that the Court claims there is such a right. The Court finds all kinds of rights that are not really in the Constitution: right to an abortion, right to engage in sodomy, etc.

[dangermom]

If you're interested, you could read up on the homeschooling folks' perspective here (http://www.hsc.org/). Start at the bottom for chronological order.

The way most independent homeschoolers operate in California is to register as a private school. This is what I do. It is simple, and allows me great freedom. The family in the court case was registered in a private umbrella school. I don't know why they decided to try to challenge the existing arrangement, which is a very good one for California homeschoolers.

Currently no one thinks that homeschooling will become "illegal" in California, with that opinion becoming enforced (which would be nigh impossible for practical reasons). The worry is that legislators will look at our nice comfy lack of regulation and decide that oversight, regulation, and generally lots of control is in order. Independent homeschoolers don't want this to happen for several reasons:

--It's very difficult to write a good law. It is far more likely than not that we would end up with cumbersome yet unhelpful hoops to jump through.

--In general, homeschooled students in states without much regulation do better (by the usual testing measures) than homeschooled students in more regulated states.

--It's not like California has lots of money to invest in a new layer of educational bureaucracy. Homeschoolers tend to feel that since the CA public schools aren't educating the kids they already have up to their own standards, it makes little sense to start trying to control the homeschooled ones as well, who are mostly doing better than that.


We like our freedom to tailor our children's educations to their individual needs. This is the great strength of homeschooling, and regulation undermines that. I homeschool independently because I want to do it myself, without someone else telling me what to teach--if I wanted that I would join the local public ISP (there are 3) and get free materials. But I have a different system than the state does. I don't want to be told what to teach for, say, 2nd grade science; we are quite happy doing astronomy this semester instead of whatever it is the public schools do. I also enjoy the freedom to use materials of my own choosing. If I want to use a Mennonite grammar text (as I do), then I jolly well don't want anyone telling me I can't.

So what we want to do is get the judge's opinion depublished, so that it won't serve as precedent. We also want to emphasize that we're doing just fine and we don't need regulation, so please don't start designing any.

People worry about abuse, it is true. However, as you can see, the family in the original case (which is a trainwreck, and not a good test case) was taken to court under the welfare laws, which provide every power the courts need to deal with such cases. The judge had the power to send the kids to school under the welfare laws, but chose to drag education law in so that he could make a statement about homeschooling in general.

So there are a few of my thoughts, unorganized as they are.

[Mr. Moto]

I do not like courts creating rights. I see no reason to extend a right (parental rights) that is not even in the Constitution.

The First Amendment is in the Constitution, isn't it?

[DSYoungEsq]

In other words, you would like the state of California to continue to ignore its own statutes on the subject of home-schooling, statutes that home-schoolers have been violating for years?

How about a different concept: the state re-writes the home-schooling laws to conform more closely to what is actual practice in California.

Or, how about an entirely novel concept: the home-schoolers in the state begin to actually follow the law?

Oh, yeah, right, silly me...

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

The First Amendment is in the Constitution, isn't it?

Of course, but it does not apply.

(And even if it did never should have been incorporated in the first place.)

[Mr. Moto]

Or, how about an entirely novel concept: the home-schoolers in the state begin to actually follow the law?

What if the law in question is on shaky constitutional ground, much like those laws in the late-19th and early-20th century that sought to bar parochial education?

[Renob]

Requiring education as the state sees fit is a valid exercise of the state's police power.
How so? I fail to see any reason that the state should have more power than a parent in determining a child's education. In fact, "education as the state sees fit" sounds vaguely totalitarian to me.

In other words, you would like the state of California to continue to ignore its own statutes on the subject of home-schooling, statutes that home-schoolers have been violating for years?
Yes, since its statutes are a violation of individual rights.

[Mr. Moto]

Of course, but it does not apply.

Please explain how it doesn't - said amendment provides not only for the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech but also freedom of assembly. And that latter freedom has been broadly interpreted to include assemblies for the purpose of disseminating information.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Please explain how it doesn't - said amendment provides not only for the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech but also freedom of assembly. And that latter freedom has been broadly interpreted to include assemblies for the purpose of disseminating information.

No one says you cannot get together a group of kids and give them information. The state is just saying you have to educate your children in the manner required by our laws (which are a valid exercise of the state's police power). So if you want to have an assembly of children go for it, just do not think it will satisfy the state's education requirements.

[dangermom]

In other words, you would like the state of California to continue to ignore its own statutes on the subject of home-schooling, statutes that home-schoolers have been violating for years?

How about a different concept: the state re-writes the home-schooling laws to conform more closely to what is actual practice in California.

Or, how about an entirely novel concept: the home-schoolers in the state begin to actually follow the law?

Oh, yeah, right, silly me...
In California, it is legal to homeschool in 3 different ways:

By having a teaching credential.

By enrolling in an umbrella school such as a public or private ISP, of which there are many.

By establishing the family as a private school.


I'm a private school and registered with the state as such. AFAIK, I have followed the law. I could expand my school and take in more students, but I have no plans to do so at this time. California homeschoolers have been successfully doing this for 20 years. Why fix it if it ain't broke? Any new legislation would almost certainly be worse and more expensive.

[Mr. Moto]

So if you want to have an assembly of children go for it, just do not think it will satisfy the state's education requirements.

But it was pointed out earlier that if those requirements are too strict, they will run afoul of the Constitution. Certainly the Supreme Court had issues with laws crafted to severely restrict parochial education. Why should laws that similarly severely restrict home schooling just get a pass?

You are arguing as if the requirements of the state are paramount here - when I believe courts will look at these in conjunction with how they impact those First Amendment issues I mentioned earlier.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I aware that the Court claims there is such a right. The Court finds all kinds of rights that are not really in the Constitution: right to an abortion, right to engage in sodomy, etc. Yes, but the Ninth Amendment states:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Why do you think the government should be able to limit my right to do what I wish with my body with other consenting adults (sodomy)? What would be the government's justification for denying this right?

[BrainGlutton]

How so? I fail to see any reason that the state should have more power than a parent in determining a child's education. In fact, "education as the state sees fit" sounds vaguely totalitarian to me.

Comes under the state's (every state's) general plenary police power. The legitimacy of federal government involvement in education is debatable, but not state.

[BrainGlutton]

Yes, but the Ninth Amendment states:

Nobody really knows what the Ninth Amendment means, nor the Tenth either; there has never been any significant case law construing them.

[BrainGlutton]

Please explain how it doesn't - said amendment provides not only for the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech but also freedom of assembly. And that latter freedom has been broadly interpreted to include assemblies for the purpose of disseminating information.

But home-schoolers generally base their arguments not on the First Amendment but on a "zone of autonomy" which the Constitution has frequently been held to imply even though it's nowhere spelled out; same principle underlying the SCOTUS decisions that states can't ban abortion, sodomy or mixed-race marriage.

Furthermore, nobody says homeschoolers can't hold their own educational sessions, with or without state-accredited teachers, in addition to what the state requires; the issue is whether such sessions can substitute for state requirements, and on that issue the First Amendment is completely irrelevant.

[BrainGlutton]

(And even if it [the First Amendment] did never should have been incorporated in the first place.)

Eh? You mean, incorporated so as to apply to state government as well as federal? Whyever not?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Yes, but the Ninth Amendment states:Why do you think the government should be able to limit my right to do what I wish with my body with other consenting adults (sodomy)? What would be the government's justification for denying this right?

So you think the 9th Amendment creates (or protects) judicially enforceable, individual rights that can negate state (not federal) laws?

[Mr. Moto]

The legitimacy of federal government involvement in education is debatable, but not state.

And parental involvement? I trust that the legitimacy of this isn't debatable either.

[BrainGlutton]

And parental involvement? I trust that the legitimacy of this isn't debatable either.

Nobody debates its legitimacy. The issue is who should prevail when the state decides one thing WRT a child's education and the parents decide another. I hope it's obvious that letting the parents have their way in all circumstances would be indefensible.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Eh? You mean, incorporated so as to apply to state government as well as federal? Whyever not?

There is no constitutional justification for incorporating the 1st Amendment to the states. The justification of incorporation comes from the 14th Amendment, but this goes against the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

[Renob]

Comes under the state's (every state's) general plenary police power. The legitimacy of federal government involvement in education is debatable, but not state.
I know the state government claims this, but it's in the interest of every government to claim as much power as it can. I simply disagree with the notion that it's the state's responsibility (as opposed to the parents') to educate children. Yes, voters can decide that they want to tax everyone to pay for such education, but that does not mean that they should have the power to compel every person in a certain geographic area to hand over their children to the state for whatever indoctrination the government deems acceptable.

[BrainGlutton]

There is no constitutional justification for incorporating the 1st Amendment to the states. The justification of incorporation comes from the 14th Amendment, but this goes against the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

You mean incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) as such goes against the text of the 14th Amendment, or only incorporation of the First Amendment?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Nobody really knows what the Ninth Amendment means, nor the Tenth either; there has never been any significant case law construing them.

The 10th Amendment has some pretty significant case law. Garcia being the most important.

[Renob]

Nobody debates its legitimacy. The issue is who should prevail when the state decides one thing WRT a child's education and the parents decide another. I hope it's obvious that letting the parents have their way in all circumstances would be indefensible.
Sure, when the life or possibly the health of the child is at stake. But when you are talking merely about what types of things the child is taught, I fail to see any justification for presuming that the government knows better than a parent how to raise a child.

[BrainGlutton]

I know the state government claims this, but it's in the interest of every government to claim as much power as it can. I simply disagree with the notion that it's the state's responsibility (as opposed to the parents') to educate children. Yes, voters can decide that they want to tax everyone to pay for such education, but that does not mean that they should have the power to compel every person in a certain geographic area to hand over their children to the state for whatever indoctrination the government deems acceptable.

Well, now you're making a policy as opposed to a legal/constitutional argument. And it is based on first principles out of which you almost certainly can't be argued; just bear in mind that they are the first principles only of a minority.

[Renob]

Well, now you're making a policy as opposed to a legal/constitutional argument. And it is based on first principles out of which you almost certainly can't be argued; just bear in mind that they are the first principles only of a minority.
I agree with everything you say. I just find it unfortunate that the principles of liberty and individual freedom are now only held by a minority in this nation.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

You mean incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) as such goes against the text of the 14th Amendment, or only incorporation of the First Amendment?

The incorporation of any of the first eight amendments goes against the text of 14th Amendment.

[BrainGlutton]

I agree with everything you say. I just find it unfortunate that the principles of liberty and individual freedom are now only held by a minority in this nation.

They're not. Your interpretation of the principles of liberty and individual freedom is now held only by a minority in this nation. (Which does not make that interpretation wrong nor right, but it is in important factor to take into account when evaluating it.)

[BrainGlutton]

The incorporation of any of the first eight amendments goes against the text of 14th Amendment.

To which part of the text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text) are you referring?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Nobody really knows what the Ninth Amendment means, nor the Tenth either; there has never been any significant case law construing them.Maybe true, but the un-enumerated rights implied by the Ninth has been used, along with the undefined personal liberty implied by the 14th, to argue against government intrusion into the private sphere...

[Renob]

They're not. Your interpretation of the principles of liberty and individual freedom is now held only by a minority in this nation. (Which does not make that interpretation wrong nor right, but it is in important factor to take into account when evaluating it.)
True, but don't you know that my interpretation is the correct one? ;)

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

So you think the 9th Amendment creates (or protects) judicially enforceable, individual rights that can negate state (not federal) laws?I don't think it creates them, but I do think it protects them when considered with the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe this view is validated with how the Supreme Court has applied the 14th in case law...


on Editing:
Never mind, it appears you and BG are already discussing this...

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

To which part of the text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text) are you referring?

The arguments for incorporation comes from two clause - the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause.

If the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated the Bill of Rights, there would be no need for the Due Process Clause.

And there is no way to logically read the Due Process Clause as incorporating the Bill of Rights.

[Voyager]

If you're interested, you could read up on the homeschooling folks' perspective here (http://www.hsc.org/). Start at the bottom for chronological order.

The way most independent homeschoolers operate in California is to register as a private school. This is what I do. It is simple, and allows me great freedom. The family in the court case was registered in a private umbrella school. I don't know why they decided to try to challenge the existing arrangement, which is a very good one for California homeschoolers.

Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?

[BrainGlutton]

And there is no way to logically read the Due Process Clause as incorporating the Bill of Rights.

Do you have a specific criticism of the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gitlow v. New York? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York)

[dangermom]

Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?
Privately-schooled children aren't required to take the tests, but I haven't got any particular problem with having my kids take them. I will when they're older. Right now my oldest is 7, and I think it's ridiculous to make 2nd-graders sit through hours of standardized testing. The emphasis on testing is a small part of why we homeschool, and enough of my teacher friends complain about NCLB and the resulting testing obsession that I think my opinion is pretty reasonable.

My husband and I have every intention of educating our kids to a higher standard than that achieved by the majority of public schools in California. Our kids are reasonably bright, and I'm not worried about their ability to pass any tests when the time comes, but I'm not going to make them do it too young. If it became law that I do so, I would--I'd just think it was a stupid law, just as I think testing all kids under, say, age 10 is a stupid requirement.

Is it time to start an "ask the homeschooler" thread in IMHO? I'm willing, though I would welcome some help.

[Syntropy]

Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?
My daughter was homeschooled through a program attached to the local school district (http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/coil/) for a little over two years. She took all the mandated tests. I'm not sure this decision will even effect that program, since each child's curriculum is supervised and approved by a licensed teacher.

[Renob]

Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB?
The only reason public schools are foreced to administer these tests is because they take federal money. The acceptance of federal funds is the only way that the feds have any authority over education. If you don't take federal funds, you don't have to comply with the rules that are attached to those funds.

[WhyNot]

Is it time to start an "ask the homeschooler" thread in IMHO? I'm willing, though I would welcome some help.
I'm ALWAYS willing to offer an opinion. ;) I'm not currently a homeschooler, but I'm considering it very seriously for my daughter and I, so I've been researching it quite a bit. I've observed and aided two homeschoolers for 10 years now who do both in-home private homesechooling and some homeschool group classes. I have a pretty good sense of how things can work well, as well as a few examples of how they can work poorly. So if you want to do it, I'll be more than happy to help out as much as I can.

[aptronym]

Is it time to start an "ask the homeschooler" thread in IMHO?Well, I think there are some issues that need to be resolved in GD before an IMHO thread becomes useful. As it stands, half of the arguments for and half of the arguments against homeschooling are born of ignorance - "schools pay 90% of their costs to non-teachers" vs. "homeschooling people can't teach as well as a state-certified teacher", for instance.

Does/should the government (federal or state) or the parents have ultimate authority in deciding how a child is educated? If the government is totally dysfunctional and corrupt, can/should a parent remove their child from the system against all objections? If a parent is totally dysfunctional and incompetent as a teacher, can/should the government remove the child against all objections?

[dangermom]

Well, I was sort of thinking that the personal experiences could go into the IMHO thread instead of being sprinkled all over the philosophy thread here. I would hope to do some mythbusting and shed some light on the subject, but in a more concrete way than you're going to get here.

*shrug* If there's interest, I'll start one tomorrow morning. If not, then I won't.

[Voyager]

The only reason public schools are foreced to administer these tests is because they take federal money. The acceptance of federal funds is the only way that the feds have any authority over education. If you don't take federal funds, you don't have to comply with the rules that are attached to those funds.
That's true of the NCLB tests. (And I agree with everyone's low opinion of them.) But the California HS graduation test is a state mandate. Neither of my kids thought they were very hard, but there is all sorts of fuss every June about the kids who failed it 3 times in a row and still want to walk. I hope you agree that it is at least possible that some home schooled kids could have issues. I'd hope that they would have to take them also - though any whose parents did a good job shouldn't have a problem.

When I was in school in NY we had to pass Regents tests in a variety of subjects to get credit, so this is nothing new.

[dangermom]

The Homeschooling Association of California issued a joint statement today; here it is (http://www.hsc.org/jointstatement) for anyone who wants to see a brief overview of the homeschooling position. I don't know if I should post the whole thing, though since it's being sent out as a public announcement so I should think it would be fine.

Voyager, if the graduation test is a state requirement for everyone, then we'll take it, no problem. I haven't yet studied the intricacies of high school homeschooling; I don't even know if we'll do it. I think it would be fun, but who knows what the future has in store? And by age 14 it will be time for my kids to be making a lot of their own educational decisions.

[dangermom]

Oops, forgot.
I hope you agree that it is at least possible that some home schooled kids could have issues.
Certainly I would agree with that. It's entirely possible to do homeschooling badly. Homeschooling is extreme parenting! :D However, the point is that parents are usually more invested in their childrens' success than teachers are, and they are in a position to tailor the studies individually. As a result, you get fewer total failures in homeschooling than in public schools, but they do happen. Homeschooled kids even get pregnant or do drugs--it won't magically solve all your problems.

This can be a particular problem with high school kids who really want to drop out, but talk their parents into "homeschooling" so that they can pretend to still be in school without any actual intention of doing any learning. (We've always had those kids though, and there have always been independent-study high schools to deal with them--my brother was one! He hated the stupidities of school so much that he simply refused to cooperate, and then hated the even worse stupidities of the IS school more. He muddled through and did a lot of study abroad and did college just fine, but he still can't suffer fools gladly.)

[Ivorybill]

Well, I was sort of thinking that the personal experiences could go into the IMHO thread instead of being sprinkled all over the philosophy thread here. I would hope to do some mythbusting and shed some light on the subject, but in a more concrete way than you're going to get here.

*shrug* If there's interest, I'll start one tomorrow morning. If not, then I won't.We've been homeschooling for five years. I'd be happy to contribute to a thread if you start one.

[Antinor01]

I was homeschooled for about a decade. My younger three siblings were all homeschooled as well(the youngest is 15 and is still at home). I'd be glad to chime in on an 'ask the homeschooler' thread from the student perspective.

A shame my mom isn't a doper, she has been homeschooling for 27 years and would have a lot of insight to share.

[WhyNot]

All right, I'd like to officially request an "Ask the homeschooler/ed" thread, if I may.

[dangermom]

Okay, okay! I'm doing it already! :p