California Appeals Court Essentially Makes Homeschooling Illegal

[keithdb]

The court has declared that children must be taught by a credentialed teacher; anyone homeschooling without the proper credentials can be prosecuted under truancy laws.

Article hereWe don't homeschool, but as far as I'm concerned, if a person wishes to teach their children and the children meet any state testing requirements, then beyond that the

Comments

[pleasantlyevil]

The state has set legal standards determining what is required of all children under the age of 16 in determining truancy and a proper education. I would counter that if a person wishes to home school their children, they must do what is required to meet all state requirements and the children should show that they are meeting any and all state testing requirements. Clearly, you feel that the state's requirements are too strict. Regardless, the appeals court is clearly responding by enforcing the law as it is, not as homeschoolers may want it to be. I'm sure this creates a hardship on a good number of people, but the law was there, it seems like they knew it, and they've been circumventing it, so now they're screwed. It seems to me that the homeschool movement in California needs to either work with lawmakers to change this, but for now they need to get in lockstep with the state's laws and do things right.

To me, it's quite simple when it comes to education. A portion of my tax dollars go to making sure that everyone's children are educated properly so that our state and country do not go into technological and financial sinkholes where suddenly we're all living in boxes and starving. It's in your and my best interests that not just your or my children get an education, but also the children of complete strangers, whether they be on your block or an entire coast away, get a decent education. I don't see it as unreasonable that an organization (in this case, the State of California) which is taking money to provide a service (in this case, an education) be allowed to set the rules, conditions and guidelines under which that service is provided. The state is trying to provide the best return of investment that its taxpayers have made and, legally since 1953, California thinks that a licensed teacher is required to give its taxpayers that return.

And, as a request for information, what Consitutional right grants people the "fundamental right to teach their own children at home"? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just wondering under what right is this going to be argued when this hits the Supreme Court. . .

[bbendick]

Wasn't there a founding father who argued against the bill of rights because he feared that listing those rights would imply they were the *only* rights?

[pleasantlyevil]

We can pretend, if you'd like, that we have all the rights one could imagine, but let's face it: We don't. I don't have the right to walk up to you and shoot you because I disagree with you, even though I have the right to bear arms. I don't have the right to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded building when there isn't one, even though I have the right to free speech. I could continue, but I think my point is clear. I also don't feel I have the fundamental right to pull my kids out of either public or private school and teach them at home without following the proper guidelines for the education system of the region I live in.

[spoondave]

Actually, the Constitution does say that any rights not otherwise outlined are reserved for the people. As you correctly point out, real-world law has tended to ignore that little piece of verbiage, but that doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, I haven't got time right now for the libertarian rant that your stance calls for. :-)

[pleasantlyevil]

Well, when you have time to rant, I'll give you some talking points.

So far my I see my stances as fairly pragmatic, and they are as follows (and are not listed in any specific order):

a) The real world sucks and the people need to work with lawmakers to change the things that suck in the law. Skirting around or breaking the laws you don't like and whining that it's not fair when you get caught and told you have to stop isn't always the best process for long-term change. Yes, I understand how one makes a challenge on the constitutionality of any law, but in its design, it is terribly counterproductive to actually instituting change. That, in itself, needs to change, but how do you prove that the Constitution is unconstititutional?

b) We all have an obligation to each other to ensure that every child in this country is educated properly. In the end, it serves our best interests.

c) At some point, my rights have to be abridged such that I don't violate yours, and vice versa. Any time you can figure out how I can have all the rights I want while you get all the rights you want without each of us having to live on a desert island, let me know and I'll help you enact your plan.

d) My mother was a teacher, I've married one and am marrying another, and in watching what they have gone through and what they have had to learn in order to do that job, I have seen enough to formulate the opinion that not just anyone can stay home and teach their children and do the job well enough such that standards for performance can be set aside.

e) The above was a hella long run-on sentence and should be avoided at all costs in formal writing.

f) This sure beats working.