Did you hear the one about how California has abolished home schooling?
Some emails you learn to take with a grain of salt, and the ones last week about how California had banned homeschooling are a case in point. The hysteria was over the top, and the claims lacked important detail - at least that was my impression and I looked no further.
Well, it turns out that this case is a huge deal in the blogosphere, with vast commentary and claims and counterclaims. But the trendline is clear here: what was a hysteria a few days ago is now being looked at calmly and with some perspective. The California homeschool organizations, for example, have all said that while the decision is poorly worded, it has no impact on homeschoooling.
This morning, Deal Hudson offers a roundup that pretty well douses the flames of outrage completely.
it turns out that the kids in question were actually enrolled in a publicly funded charter school. They were subject to attendance regulations. Instead they were merely taking tests and things at the school and were otherwise being homeschooled. This means that the case was not addressing the issue of homeschooling at all. It was addressing the question of outside tutors for kids in public institutions -- and the judge ruled that they must be credentialed. It doesn't seem to affect the status of homeschooling in any other way.
Now, if Hudson is correct, the Homeschool Legal Defense Fund, which blasted away at the decision, and is currently petitioning for it to be depublished, was taken in, as well as the teachers' unions, which praised the decision. The facts of the case seem to have no effect on homeschooling at all; the language of the decision, however, does seem overly broad. It comes down to a case of a judge who got carried away with his rhetoric and didn't understand the law. This in turn misled the Los Angeles Times, which first reported on the case. k
Despite the misinformation and fury, what's nice here is to see just how passionate the homeschoolers are in fighting even the appearance of intervention. Would that other sectors of society were as excitable.
Comments (13)
The headlines "ban" and "abolish" might be misleading, but the judge makes his intent and interpretation of the statutes quite clear. The ruling seems to set the stage to target homeschooling parents who do not qualify for California state teaching certification.
I know my initial reaction was extreme and the headline set for controversy, but looking at the issue, there does seem to be a consequence of growing state power at the expense of parents...so...when a judge takes that power for the state...there should be controversy and outrage.
http://freecollegeblog.com/2008/03/08/california-bans-home-schooling/
Published: March 10, 2008 10:27 AM
Thanks for drawing my attention to the judge's quotation from the California school statute, which just about sum it all up: "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."
Published: March 10, 2008 10:34 AM
When we lived in California 16 years ago, the standard for homeschooling was that you had to be a certified teacher. My wife was going through the brainwashing process of teacher certification when we found that our school district had a supervised home school option, so we decided to go that route.
If California requires home schoolers to be certified teachers, it is merely a step backward. I would rather not see progress lost, but I wouldn't view it as encroachment of the State so much as the pendulum swinging back.
Published: March 10, 2008 10:44 AM
It is only a matter of time. The only step is that California does not enforce the law. The only real ruling that should not create controversy is the one declaring this whole part of California law unconstitutional.
Published: March 10, 2008 1:09 PM
k at the end of the fourth paragraph.
Published: March 10, 2008 1:48 PM
"Thanks for drawing my attention to the judge's quotation from the California school statute, which just about sum it all up: "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.""
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Published: March 10, 2008 2:47 PM
I'm a home schooling father of six children living in California.
This ruling could not have come at a better time.
The state and several municipalities are or will soon be insolvent as the mortgage meltdown continues. Just 50,000 new students would be a disaster much less nearly 200,000 (I have reason to believe that home schoolers in California are undercounted - there are strong incentives for families with children who have never been enrolled in public schools not to file paperwork with the state).
Published: March 10, 2008 7:27 PM
"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."
Translation: "The purpose of our indoctrination centers is to make your children good little servants to the state."
Published: March 11, 2008 12:57 AM
It still seems to me that, whatever colors you use to paint this pig, it's still a pig.
The government - this time the judicial branch - once again sets itself up as the preferred parent, over a childs biological/ adopted one.
Parents should have the right to have their child educated in any manner they see fit. If they choose to have a surrogate, even an unaccredited one, educate their children, that is no one's business but their own.
The State, as readers of this website should know, has an extremely powerful interest in being the sole provider of indoctrination to our children and jealously guards it. Any ruling such as this should be fought tooth and nail until parental control returns to parents.
Published: March 11, 2008 5:28 AM
So I gather that much of this issue turns on whether Sunland is a chartered public school or merely a homeschool cover. Information is all over the place. In any case, the real problem here is compulsory attendance laws, and this case highlights that. Lacking details of the exact legal status of Sunland, I'm bowing out of this one. I hope someone looks into it further.
Published: March 11, 2008 10:16 AM
public school is still better than home schooling cause children need to socialize with others
Published: January 8, 2009 9:20 PM
That's like saying that people should spend time in jail in order to learn how to survive in jail. That "socialising" teaches (some of) them how to cope socially with other people in the same sort of artificial environment, but it is poor training for independent living where you can pick and choose who you associate with - and who to walk away from and when to do it.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:41 PM
How can an environment, call it a public school, based on taxation, unionism, compulsory attendance, bureaucratic disincentives and a web of local, regional, state and national political interference be deemed "social"?
Published: January 9, 2009 9:25 AM