California court hates homeschoolers

Homosocialists, homosocialists, homosocialists.

Next topic, please.

Well, that should help keep property values from plummeting here in Oregon. Maybe Jonah Goldberg was on to something with "Liberal Fascism".

Wow! This is really unfortunate. I know that in Texas and Oklahoma that you have to get a type of certificate to home school and register with a State board that oversees the materials to make sure they comply with State homeschooling standards(I have friends whose parents homeschooled them and they explained how it worked). Why does one have to have a college degree (teaching credentials) to teach and which credentials? The State of Oklahoma does not recognize the credentials from outside of the State...thus to teach in Oklahoma you have to also apply for teaching credentials in this State. I have been told it's not like that in other States. Many of the people I know who were homeschooled weren't Christian conservatives..some were secular liberals, some were Jewish, etc, etc. I have friends now that have thought about homeschooling...even some friends who have their "teaching credentials" from an Oklahoma university.

"The parent is the first guru" is a saying amongst Hindus and I completely agree. It doesn't say the State is the guru, the parent is the guru. I think California is stepping over the line. I hope that the appeal returns sanity upon this issue and lets parents be their children's guru.

NC is pretty wide open for homeschoolers as well. Here you just have to register as a school, keep attendendance records (AFAIK they don't actually ask for them, usually) and administer a nationally normed test at the end of the school year. That's basically it for requirements.

I'm pretty ignorant on this point, but if child protective services has credible evidence of abuse, shouldn't they just remove them from the home and have the DA press criminal charges against the parents? Is the threshold for intervention by child protective services higher than the evidence needed to prosecute criminally for child abuse?

If not, and the parents are guilty of physical abuse, it would seem that the authority of the parents over their children should be taken away, making the home school issue moot.

Does anyone know the specifics of the allegations? Is this true violence, or spanking?

This has been an incredibly poorly reported story. No one has mentioned if any of the claims of abuse have been substantiated (there are occasional problems with people who disapprove of homeschooling making false charges against families and in some areas child services officials require their workers to undergo lobotomies before being hired and are notorious for harassing people who fall into their path regardless of the reality of the situation).

There have also been no reports of how local officials presumably under this court's jurisdiction are responding. There have been no legal opinions on the ruling offered except by HSLDA who tends to have their own perspective and agenda which can run a little towards alarmist thought. There has also been very little analysis of the actual decision other than quoting the line about no constitutional right to homeschool. Etc. I'm also disgusted at all the "we want to be able to teach our kids a pack of lies which will undermine their faith as adults" quotes from homeschooling parents. It's easier to find homeschool parents who would never expose their children to this cow dung than it is to seek out 4 or 5 parents who are all this mentally deficient.

What is concerning about this case, however, is precisely that "no constitutional right" phrase. If they had said, "the right to homeschool is not absolute. In cases where there is a proven need for oversight to ensure the safety of the child, the need supercedes any right to homeschool", then this would be one family's problem. By simply saying that no parent anywhere in the state of California has the right to homeschool their child unless they are a certified tutor, it could become a lot of people's problem. Instead of keeping to the issue of the case - whether the children needed to be in a school setting so they could be monitored for their well being and if this need superceded the parent's desire to homeschool them the judges expanded their ruling to cover people who circumstances were not before the court.

There was also a very troubling part of the ruling regarding the claim to religion as giving a right to homeschool. The judges could have said that the need to protect the children overrode the parent's religious claims, just as parents can't refuse blood transfusions for their children due to religion because the need to secure the child's life over rides relgious concerns. Instead, they rejected the idea that any religious claim could be considered in deciding where the balance between the need for supervision and the religious beliefs of the family cross. Instead of being a factor to be considered, while not being an airtight "get out of jail free card", the judges found that the parent's religious beliefs were irrelevant and not a matter to be taken into consideration because it would be too easy for people to claim a religious motivation for homeschooling. So, some people might lie about their religious beliefs, therefor the very real religious beliefs of other parents cannot be taken seriously.

It's just dumb. The good thing about it is that it seems to be such a poorly conceived and over-reaching judgement that it probably doesn't stand much chance of being upheld by higher courts. They may decide that the kids need to be in school, but not for the ridiculous reasons laid out in this decision. If not, well California would probably change their laws to solve the problem. And if they weren't, there are people who will either leave or break the law to do it anyways. It's an unsustainable policy.

In the LA Times article, one reads, "The appellate court ruling stems from a case involving Lynwood parents Phillip and Mary Long, who were repeatedly referred to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services over various allegations, including claims of physical abuse, involving some of their eight children."

I wondered: referred by whom? Were these allegations sustained? Isn't this information part of the real story?

Thanks for this item, Rod, as for the earlier one on the Busekros family in Germany.

Volokh conspiracy has some discussion here:

volokh.com/posts/1204845642.shtml

Link to the case here:

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

...in case anyone's interested.

Thanks for the link, MI. From the court documents, section labeled "Background of the Case":

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed on behalf of three
minor children after the eldest of them reported physical and emotional mistreatment by
the children’s father.

The attorney representing the younger two children asked the juvenile court to
order that the children be enrolled in a public or private school. The dependency court
declined to make such an order despite the court’s opinion that the home schooling the
children were receiving was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,” and despite the court’s
opinion that keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they
could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide
help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop
emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ “cloistered” setting. As noted above,
the court ruled that the parents have a constitutional right to home school the children.
From that ruling the attorney for the younger children seeks extraordinary writ relief.

It appears the children themselves claimed to be abused.

WRT supposed abuse by homeschoolers, I think the state has a legitmate vested interest in seeing children away from their parents several hours every month.

And it's worth pointing out that for most home schooled kids, this happens repeatedly as kids do activities, some organized by homeschoolers and some normal 'extracurricular' ones. They're out in public all the time, even under the care of other parents doing 'field trips' and stuff. It's the lunatics who don't ever let their kids leave the house that are the danger.

I wonder how many attacks on homeschooling would have their legs cut out from under them if homeschoolers started pushing for mandatory 'homeschool assemblies', where all the homeschooled kids have to show up and attend a fairly pointless speech and lunch once a month, without their parents by their side.

It would be a nice way to make sure that normally-treated homeschool kids learn about various things that are going on and options for them, as even well-informed parents can sometimes get tunnel vision and, for example, never consider that their child might want to join a homeschooled debate team until he comes home all excited from hearing about it from someone else at the assembly.

I understand some of the 'want to protect your kids' concept, although I think it's somewhat wrongheaded, but if your child cannot handle a few hours of interaction with random other children, well, I'm sorry, but they're going to fall apart when they hit college.

But the other purpose would be to notice which kids appear to flinch when other people speak to them, or not understand how to use silverware, or can't talk, or other signs of extreme abuse.

I know it sounds sort of fascist, sorta big-brotherish, but the only way to even notice abuse is to have responsible adults observe kids, and the problem with homeschooling is that abusive parents can keep that from ever happening. It's a legitimate worry.

David TC; you're right; you do sound fascist when you say " I think the state has a legitmate vested interest in seeing children away from their parents several hours every month." whew think and chew on those words for awhile. Do you have kids? That and your mandatory assemblies sound like the re-education camp round-up. Observe the kids for what at these aseemblies? Signs? What signs? Based on whose standards? I think you, like many who misunderstand and misperceive homeschooling would do well to talk to a homseschooling family or homeschooled children. You might be surprised.

As others have staed above, I wonder who made the allegations. As a member of HSLDA, every month's newsletter documents many instances where social services are called by neighbors and even family on homeschoolers. Not becuse of any actual abuse or problem, but just to stir up trouble. It's also surprising how many state workers know so little about homeschooling laws and constitutional law regarding probable cause vs suspicion as many try to force themselves into people's homes. These cases will only get more frequent.

I understand many peoples concerns about "socialization" for kids- this with the mindset that kids should be in school to be among other people of their own age. This is based on? Nothing, other than their own experience. And our public schools are such models or societal interaction, what with shootings, "lockdowns", bomb threats, not to mention the social bullying, cliques, and other forms of social harrasment that kids apprently "need". Those things only serve to send the message that public schools are anything but the ideal environment for kids to grow. As to the argument that if kids arent' "socialized" they will turn into freaks of some sort, it seems all the school shootings in the past decade or so occurred at the hands of kids who went to public schools, who were somehow more well-adjusted than someone who was homeschooled? Wonder if anyone worried about their socialization beofre the tragedies occurred?

Mhoram is right about Illinois, which is quite friendly to homeschooling. Most homeschooling families I know about are involved in all kinds of community activities, and their kids are far from isolated.

Nonetheless, back when I worked in the child welfare system, and in one divorce case I handled, I did run into problems in homeschooling families. That's two families over 35 years, so certainly not grounds for blanket condemnation. One of the cases involved abuse and neglect, and the other just involved terminal weirdness, but it was good that they came to public attention.

FWIW, Volokh agrees that there is no constitutional right to homeschooling.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_02-2008_03_08.shtml#1204845642

It's absurd to think there is a constitutional right to deny your children an education. If homeschool activists had their way, there would be absolutely no check to assure that children are learning anything at all. So the states have to draw lines.

For a movement that complains about judicial activism and constitutional literalism, the idea that there is a constitutional right to keep your child illiterate--if that's what you chose, as the end point of educational decisionmaking--is absurd and almost shocking.

D, it is your claim that ANY hopmeschool parent is/has argued that they can/should deny their kids an education which is absurd. As the record stands, public schools should be required to submit to monitoring by homeschoolers since only homeschoolers have a consistent record of providing American children with a quality education.

And there's also no explicite constitutional right to take a dump, use q-tips or brew coffee in your house in the morning. Let's hope that this court is never called on to rule on anything remotely related to those issues! Yeesh.

"It's absurd to think there is a constitutional right to deny your children an education. If homeschool activists had their way, there would be absolutely no check to assure that children are learning anything at all."

Please. Any 'homeschool 'activists' who think that way are a tiny minority of the whole homeschool movement. And in any case, I don't see where the Constitution mandates that one's children be made literate by the government's standards or otherwise. I think the government's time might be better served if they started spending time looking out for the literacy of students at their own schools. The presence of homeschool underachievers does not seem to be a huge problem with the movement.

For someone who chastises conservatives for making slippery-slope arguments regarding gays, this is priceless.

I try. :) It is interesting that the homeschool movement--firmly entrenched at the far right of the conservative establishment--wants expansive interpretations of constitutional rights in order to accommodate their political goals.

"It is interesting that the homeschool movement--firmly entrenched at the far right of the conservative establishment..."

Not so. There are many port-listing homeschoolers of the 'crunchy Left' variety, and also not a few libertarian types.

"For someone who chastises conservatives for making slippery-slope arguments regarding gays, this is priceless."

A socialist's lack of consistency continually wrestles for dominance with his lack of nuance.

The court involved breezed over the constitutional argument, which remains to be addressed, and which, if valid, would trump the Education Code.

I personally picked this up on World Net Daily the day after it was decided (not the world's most reliable source) and ran it down for legal citation. Then I relentlessly needled the LA Times until they published an account. They'd have found it anyway sooner or later (I hope). I can't take credit for the article - they researched the matter very well once I called it to their attention.

This case purports to outlaw all homeschooling in California but for a very few exceptions.

This is a case of the Second Appellate District of California (that is, Los Angeles and environs) and statements of the teachers' union to the contrary, is not binding on courts in any other District. Until the California Supreme Court rules on the matter.

You-all are invited to read the entire case at http://www.jadepebble.com/In%20re%20Rachel.htm

I posted it there, but now it's available at a number of sites.

What will happen now? No one knows. This particular case has "bad facts" in that the family seems to have been abusive in other ways. It would be better to take a case up to the Cal Supremes with "good facts" to wit, a squeaky-clean family.

The problem is that there are some 166,000 children being homeschooled in California (or more even, who knows) and in fact, statements by the teachers' union to the contrary, the public school districts are not anxious to take on that many children in addition to the ones they can't care for properly already. No one will challenge a squeaky-clean family. I'm assuming that someone or other will set up a "test case" which will probably not be this particular family.

Check out also this article in the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

What will happen now is that people will go on doing what they've always been doing, and everyone will wait for a final disposition of this matter, which will take years. This is NOT a done deal. This is the opinion of one district appellate court in California, not legally binding on any other district in California, let alone on anyone outside of California.

But. I'm suspecting that the Education Code sections on which the court here relies are duplicated in most other states.

Coming soon to a state near you.

Big Brother Is Watching.

"There are many port-listing homeschoolers of the 'crunchy Left' variety, and also not a few libertarian types."

You know, I hear this all the time. And I have no doubt a few exist. But the homeschool movement and its legal efforts are firmly entrenched in the culture wars with religious conservative. They aren't hanging out with the CATO Institute, they are lunching with Focus on the Family. Let's not kid ourselves here.

While the demographics of homeschoolers may be "diverse," the people who bring lawsuits, lobby legislatures, and lead national organizations are in lock-step with the conservative far right.

OK, Daniel, but as a former homeschooler myself, let me let you in on the fact that a VERY substantial number of homeschoolers are on the left. Like the far left, if you know what I mean.

Of course the far lefties (aka anarchists) have given up on government, so they don't "lobby legislatures, and lead national organizations." They just do what they do and nuts to you, catch me if you can. (Be sure to bring your gun, because we are armed.) (This is where the left meets the right. If you're an anarchist, which are you?? We ain't got to show no stinkin badges.)

The figure for homeschooled children in California quoted by the Times (166,000 and change) is probably very far short of the reality. Many of these people are off the grid, especially in California, which has hundreds of thousands of square miles of nearly absolute wilderness.

Legislatures can pass laws, courts can hand out decisions. But then someone has to go and catch up with "lawbreakers," and who would that be exactly in this situation? Who stands to gain? The Weitchpec school district (look it up, try "Hoopa") is going to beat the many hundreds of square miles of wilderness in their "jurisdiction" to find kids to coerce into the one-room Weitchpec elementary school? I don't think so. They already have their hands full, and if they send in school district agents it's a 50/50 that the same will be shot.

Wow, gill, what a great list! I've been on several homeschool lists/groups, and that's one I've not seen before.

You all are splitting hairs about who homeschools: organic hippies or troglodyte-6 day creation-flat-earthers. Homeschoolers truly cross the political, religious, and educational spectrum.

Just as public schools are not responsible for every wacko who shoots up a school, homeschoolers are not responsible for every (or any) disordered family that kills or otherwises abuses their kids in the name of homeschooling. Howmever, homeschoolers are extremely resistant to closer monitoring of homeschoolers in order to help prevent such cases.

As RebeccaT surely knows, the problem comes that the most vocal homeschool lobbying group, HSLDA, is firmly on the "right" end of the spectrum. Non-religious homeschoolers have been trying to develop their own lobbying organization, but it's been a hard slog. HSLDA has been at this for 30(?) years, and they often take stands on issues that have nothing to do with the rights of parents to homeschool, and that are at odds with parents who do not h/s for religious reasons. They are the ones who have proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right of parents to educate their children (or not) as parents see fit.

For a look at the representation of the "left" end of homeschooling, try HEM (Home Educators Magazine) and "Who Stole Homeschooling?" by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. (Rod, if you aren't aware of Cheryl's background and work in what was the early crunchy con movement, you should be.)

My take on the California decision? Rod had the chance for another inflammatory headline. (Ruling something illegal =/= "hates.") And the ruling will amount to nothing in practice for California homeschoolers, but serve as an excuse for HSLDA to screech, induce terror, and gather more dues-paying members.

My take on the California decision? Rod had the chance for another inflammatory headline. (Ruling something illegal =/= "hates.") And the ruling will amount to nothing in practice for California homeschoolers, but serve as an excuse for HSLDA to screech, induce terror, and gather more dues-paying members.

Sadly true, Connie. This is not "law" for all of California, and will not be so for a long time. And for even longer, if we're looking for meaningful enforcement, which may take until the Second Coming.

It's going to be a long time before the real import of this decision shakes out. And political pressure will be important. But HSLDA is, as you note, far to the right, and has its own ox to gore.

My advice to current California homeschoolers? Go on doing what you are doing. Your kids will be in college long before anyone can sort this out. And support organizations who are fighting this, but not necessarily HSLDA.

I intend to get involved, not for personal reasons (my youngest is 23) but for political reasons.

You parents, you have more than enough to think about, go back to those lesson plans. :) Don't pay much attention to Rod's headlines or to the HSLDA.

It's interesting to know there is such tension with HSDLA.

Connie: I'm glad the homeschool community is as diverse as it is. I do belong to HSLDA, but don't feel that they are entrenchd to the right. Just because an organization is not left, does that make it right? It may be like the saying goes (paraphrased) that the HSLDA is not right-wing relgious, but many right wing religious are in HSLDA. It's true too, that there seems to be no leftie version of the HSLDA, but why should there be? Why couldn't the ACLU support homeschoolers? Could it be because they are so entrenched to the left? Can't we all get along? Seems to me that if one homeschooler is suffering legal battles to do what they want, we all should support it. To me its the principle, not what your reason for doing it is.

"The trial court’s reason for declining to order public or private schooling for the children was its belief that parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home. However, California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court’s refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child. Because the parents in this case have not demonstrated that any of these exemptions apply to their children, we will grant the petition for extraordinary writ." (Emphasis added.)

Got it yet trotsky?

Legal question:

Does California have any old Blaine Laws still on the books and not repealed?

gotta duck out here, I'm leaving town. May other California law experts answer.

Susan,

Thanks, that helps.

Nonetheless, the court simply said what the law is and has been. My neck of the woods in NorCal is thick with home-schoolers. They advertise their events in the newspaper. They send their kids to the spelling bee (and win!). They have "charter schools" set up so they can get some money for supplies and support with classes that are beyond the parents.

It's quite a flourishing movement, and nobody in practice is trying to stop it, whatever the court might say.

Go, trotsky!! Civil (or, uncivil, as the case may be) disobedience has a long and honored history in your part of the country (and mine), and let them take us alive if they can!!

Jillian, get over yourself. Send your kids to school if that's what works for you, get over trying to get everyone else on your page.

Paranoid and armed. A dangerous combination.

Better than gullible and disarmed.

"And just which nonconsenting (or unable-to-consent) human being would we be protecting by banning computer-graphic child porn? Restrictions on vile but victimless ways for people to get their jollies are nothing but sumptuary regulations."

You're assuming that consent is a condition that requires that the law lift its hand do nothing. But why should I believe that? Mere stipulation?

It seems to me that the wider community has an interest in making sure that the disordered desires of pedophiles are not honed and perfected by their wanking to images of even virtual children. Suggesting that one can legitimately consent to one's own degradation means that human beings are only conditionally and intrinsically, valuable. To reduce the moral life, and the law of the polis, to mere consent, diminishes us all.

FJB

"And just which nonconsenting (or unable-to-consent) human being would we be protecting by banning computer-graphic child porn? Restrictions on vile but victimless ways for people to get their jollies are nothing but sumptuary regulations."

"You're assuming that consent is a condition that requires that the law lift its hand do nothing. But why should I believe that? Mere stipulation?"

No, actually, for purposes of this post, I'm just assuming that, for the law to have any right to intervene, there have to be at least two human beings involved, not merely one human being and some vile CGs. The state should stick to protecting its citizens from each other [which it isn't all that good at anyway], and leave the protection of people from themselves [which it is even worse at] to religious organizations and ethical conclaves.

The best way that homeschoolers can protect their right to homeschool is to not defend people who use homeschooling as a means to abuse the kids.

I'm sure that many homeschooling parents can relate to Gill's list, but I'd leave out:Stop assuming that because the word "school" is right there in homeschool, we must sit around at a desk for six or eight hours every day, just like your kid does. My kids don't sit around at their public school desk. They spend time at their desk when they are reading or writing, but they often work in small groups on various projects. They leave the room to go to art, gym, computer, music, science lab, & the library. They play in groups at recess. Sometimes the children skip recess for chorus or special band practice.

Rebeccat: after checking out both NHELD & HSLDA sites I found the following things. NHELD seems like an ok organization to me. I found nothing objectionable about their mission, their goals or beliefs. I do like the fact that they are working on offering a scholarship program for its members. HSLDA, as far as I can see does not have anything like that yet. They do offer funding for member families who have lost a parent, but its not a true scholarship program. I did pick the follwing clips from their respective sites :

Fom the "Who We Are" section:

After a family joins HSLDA, there are no further charges of any kind for defending them in court. HSLDA pays in full all attorney fees, expert witness costs, travel expenses, and all other court costs permissible by state law for us to pay.

The vast majority of contacts member families face are successfully resolved through our early intervention without any court action. Many times HSLDA attorneys call or write letters on behalf of members contacted by local officials. For those who wind up in court, HSLDA provides full representation at every stage of legal proceedings.

FROM THE NHELD SITE:
WITH REGARD TO LEGAL MATTERS
We can’t give legal advice to you since we aren’t licensed to practice law in your state but we can help you navigate through legal issues in the following ways:
· Provide a plan of action for your family to follow in the event of a problem encountered with government officials in instructing your children.

· Provide a letter from NHELD, LLC, to the government officials involved, on your behalf.

Provide a referral (if available) to Legal Assistance by an attorney licensed to practice in your state working jointly with NHELD licensed attorneys.
NHELD believes that most legal problems encountered by families who homeschool may be resolved without resorting to litigation or the adoption of new state or federal laws. NHELD believes that attorneys living, working, and practicing law in your state are most informed about the nuances regarding your state’s homeschooling laws. However, NHELD also believes that these attorneys will be better able to protect your freedom to educate by networking with other attorneys and homeschool associations throughout the country in order to foster exchange of ideas, information, and strategy. That is why NHELD is establishing a network of attorneys and homeschool associations nationwide. Our network will be able to provide valuable assistance in cooperatively developing strategies and in negotiating solutions to your legal problems. You and your state’s attorneys will have access to and the benefit of legal advice from our nationwide network of attorneys whenever needed.

Questions about HSLDA:

4. Is HSLDA a Christian organization?

Yes; however, HSLDA’s mission is to protect the freedom of all homeschoolers. Although our officers and directors are Christians, HSLDA membership is not limited to religiously based homeschoolers. We respect parents' rights to make the appropriate choices for the upbringing of their children. We have no agenda to make all public and home-based classrooms religious or conservative. Our primary objective is to preserve the fundamental right of parents to choose home education, free of over-zealous government officials and intrusive laws. We do put on a national conference annually and invite the board members of state organizations with whom we have worked for many years. Most, if not all, of those organizations have Christian leaders, but many serve all homeschoolers regardless of religious affiliation, as we do.

9. Does HSLDA seek to control the public debate of homeschool issues nationwide?

While we are actively engaged in public debate regarding homeschooling, we do not seek control of the public discussions surrounding homeschooling. Our communications goal regarding mainstream media is simply to promote, honestly and fairly, the merits of home education, for the good of homeschoolers universally. We also generally promote awareness of legal and legislative issues impacting homeschool families. In order to provide timely information to media on demand, HSLDA has employed a professional director of media relations. We view media work as integral to a serious organizational effort to inform the general public about the many positive aspects of homeschooling. In recent years, the media have shown particular interest in our studies on the effectiveness of homeschooling. The hundreds of news stories referring to these studies have been good for all homeschoolers, not just members of HSLDA.

10. Does HSLDA promote exclusively Christian homeschool support organizations?

We do not. Over 500 support groups participate in our group discount program. Religion is not a criterion for participation. We work in conjunction with secular and religious groups alike to promote and protect home education freedoms.

Just some stuff for all to chew on...

"It's absurd to think there is a constitutional right to deny your children an education."

If I remember correctly wasn't the outcome of the Supreme Court case dealing with Amish children that there was a Constitutional right to educate (or choose not to educate) your children as you see fit? If I remember the facts correctly, the state wanted the children to remain in school until they were sixteen. The Amish don't educate their children past the 8th grade (no need for more education if you work on a farm). The Court decided that the Amish parents could pull their children out of school.

I'm a former homeschooler who's not a huge advocate of homeschooling, but this is just ridiculous. Do we really have to go through this whole "teacher training and certification are a joke, for the most part" argument AGAIN? My children now go to Catholic and public schools, where all the teachers are certified. I'll say right off that they all have some EXCELLENT teachers, so this is not teacher-bashing by any means. But even in our hardly-getting-anything-done homeschooling (one of the reasons we quit), we were still ahead of the traditional schools, by about half a year to a year. You just can accomplish more in less time when you're not bogged down by lunch money and lining up to go to the bathroom, not to mention one-on-one attention. I'm not a certified teacher, either, although I'm now working on a Master's degree.

MJ

The advantages of professional training in education should be clear and supported by every parent:

1) A strong foundation in child development, what constitutes the normal range for any chronological age, and the dual benefit of knowing when to challenge a child where she needs it and avoid frustrating a child who is not ready.

2) A key tool in diagnosing a problem early is seeing a child in a group of peers. No parent is prepared to know when a child may be in developmental trouble without other children to compare to; name me a parent not in a formal academic track in social sciences or education who can identify developmental problems. I'll point to thousands of others who can't.

One good thing about requiring homeschooling parents to have some minimal formal training is specifically in #2. One of my wife's biggest griefs (masters in Ed., special ed teacher and administrator) is the parent who is in absolute denial of her child's problems. A homeschooling parent who has been exposed (at the least) to child development science is much less likely to do that, and much more likely to get the child the help she needs.

Personal note: my wife, a 35-year veteran, vehemently advises young people to not go into teaching, because of the bullshit she puts up with from administration and government, and the undeserved hatred she gets from (often willfully) ignorant parents. Imagine, if you can, being given a job that requires you to use a keyboard, but the rules prevent you from using your left hand and two of the fingers on your right hand, and further you will be fired for breaking those rules. Those of you who think formal training in teaching is a "waste of time", I sincerely hope you do not injure your children as a result of your ignorance.

A valid question, Meg. Some facts involved:

A private school will not receive accreditation if it does not maintain a standard of training in its staff. That in turn will damage students' chances of (for example) going to college.

As for the rest, consider that a public ed teacher, even at the secondary level, is necessarily a generalist. He must keep track of learning requirements (the IEP as it is called in many states), be at once sympathetic to issues like puberty, peer pressure and cultural differences, find a sane balance between prison warden and complete push-over, and still provide lesson plans a week ahead of time and juggle extra-curriculars, holiday schedules, and coverages for teachers out sick. A university professor is credentialed solely in the topic area and must compete with others for a position (unless there is nepotism involved; but then incompetence in a college classroom will, I hope you agree, not remain secret for very long), with the understanding that upon reaching the age of 18 and acceptance to a college, the student has acquired all the necessary skills or proven her ability to physically and mentally cope with college; the only program I know of that has formal requirements is the Religious Education curriculum for the Unitarian Universalist Association. Catechism is only ever taught by a priest or a nun under a priest's supervision (this may have changed in some areas, but not I'm sure the supervision part).

I trust all parents by default to act in the best interests of their children. I never assume that they have the requisite, specialized knowledge for certain things, and any parent who fails to acknowledge their ignorance or fails to do something about it is, in fact, acting against the best interests of his children. Whether that ignorance is honest, willful or somewhere in between, reality is a law that makes the local government responsible along with the parents. Homeschoolers must, if nothing else, see the gap left by their stepping outside that law, and do the responsible thing to fill the gap.

Just as there are bad teachers out there who should be but aren't being fired, the parents who blithely thumb their noses at government regulations and claim they can do whatever they want with their children's education also deserve to be "fired" as soon as they show their inability to teach their children. Public education is not the only valid answer, and getting rid of it in the process of ignoring the standards it defines and tries to uphold is a sure path to damaged, ignorant children.

Home schooling is illegal in California. Most home schoolers are Christians and all they know to do is fearmonger. Just look at this as an example!

http://www.cftie.org/2007/12/sb-777-will-per.html

Thanks for your opinion Larry. We can always use a bigot to liven up the discussion. The question is not whether parents are trained to teach. The question is who gave government the right to stick its finger in this pot. Are children born to their parents or to the government? Does the government feed and clothe the children? So, minus a case of obvious neglect why on earth does the government have the right to mandate to parents how to raise their children? The status quo is that children belong to parents, not to the government. This is simply another manifestation of the idea that the government is responsible for our lives.

I am homeschooler of 2 very well adjusted children that have tested way above average for their age. My youngest daughter was reading by age 3! When we did send her to school for 2 weeks of preschool, all they did was teach the children was how to potty, shapes and colors, which she had down ages ago! My daughter was way above what they taught in the schools. That's why we continued on with our education at home. I'd also like to clarify that just b/c you are Christian doesn't make you a republican conservative. Jesus was a radical liberal who fought for change, an he didn't come riding into town on an elephant it was a donkey!!! Thank God for Christian liberals!