from another blog I belong to......
Hi, Here is another article about the CA situation. I find the last sentence very interesting and a true reflection of the situation. Also I just love the 'Union pleased with ruling', no kidding. Yes this started with an abuse case but what about children too young to be in school? Will the argument then turn that infants should be in some sort of placement so the state can 'check' them? This has far reaching implications and all parents should be concerned. There are many issues at play here. Homeschoolers have had concerns and been debating moves that CA has taken regarding homeschooling in recent years. Their laws appeared reasonable but with one court ruling, look what happened. Oh and considering all the cases of teachers having sex with students and the ages of the students getting younger and younger, how reliable is the safety of students at school when you also throw in violence, drugs, and bullying?
It all comes down to, whose children are these and if it takes a village ( that is a BIG IF and I don't buy into it), who gets to pick what village that is or does the state get to plunk your child into the village of their selection and not the one you chose? I remember when Nick started kindergarten I had this sick feeling. Up to that point, dh and I had decided everything for him. We picked where and when he went, who watched him, what parks he played at and how the equipment was and how the weather was, how crowded they were, but now we were just along for the ride and the school decided everything and we were lucky if they told us what they decided.
Friday, March 7, 2008 A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution. The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.
"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."
The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential. The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely.
Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children. Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level. "California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,"
Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws." Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said. "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," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
Union pleased with ruling(
no kidding....)The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union. "We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "
We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting." A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. "
With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.
Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools. Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight. Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree. "I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments." She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs. The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."
Began as child welfare caseThe Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case. A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.
The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."
The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.
Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.
Ruling will apply statewideMichael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state. "California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.
But LESLIE HEIMOV, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER OF LOS ANGELES, Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law. "They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers." Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."
HEIMOV SAID HER ORGANIZATION'S CHIEF CONCERN WAS NOT THE QUALITY OF THE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION, BUT THEIR 'BEING IN A PLACE DAILY WHERE THEY WOULD BE OBSERVED BY PEOPLE WHO HAD A DUTY TO ENSURE THEIR ONGOING SAFETY.' Online resources The ruling: To view the ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, go to
_links.sfgate.com/ZCQR_ (
http://links.sfgate.com/ZCQR) . _http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
