March 7, 2008

Homescuttled: California Educational Establishment Squashes Homeschoolers

Hatched by Dafydd

In a ruling almost certain to ignite a chalkboard revolution, a California appellate court unanimously (3 to 0 in In re Rachel L., et al.) held, in essence, that parents cannot homeschool their kids unless the parents have a valid teaching credential for the appropriate grades.

And of course, in order to get a valid teaching credential, you must attend a "multiple subject teacher preparation program." This requirement is only satisfied by getting a BA in Education, or else taking a post-graduate course of study for at least one year; and it must include student teaching.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, the court has ruled that only credentialed teachers can teach their own kids at home. Others who want their kids taught at home must hire a tutor with a state teaching credential, as above. This is a full-blown assault on parents who don't want their kids indoctrinated in the latest leftist fads in the public schools, but who haven't enough money for private tutoring or a private school, and who cannot find a low-cost religious school near enough for their kids to attend.

At this point, it appears the only option for parents who don't like what their kids are taught in the public schools is to form their own private school -- and then get the state to certify that school. This may be difficult, as it's in the vested interest of school districts to have as large an enrollment as possible in the public schools, since that is the basis of the school's budget as set by the state. In addition, the California Department of Education is in thrall to the California Teachers Association, and the CTA hates and despises homeschooling... because the moms and dads who teach their own kids obviously have no reason to join the union.

Tthus, there is little incentive for a school district to certify any private school that is not a big corporation who can take the district to court to force certification.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sometimes play one online, to my own amusement. (And to the hysterical consternation of real lawyers, such as Patterico, Beldar, and the lads at Power Line, who seem to believe that graduating from law school, passing the bar exam, and practicing as attorneys for decades gives them some sort of superior "knowledge" about the law. Faugh! Bourgeois credentialing fetishists.) Reading through the In re Rachel L. decision, it looks like the appellate court is on fairly firm legal ground... which only shows that "the law is a ass, a idiot," as Beadle Bumble observed in Dickens' Oliver Twist.

The mandatory schooling laws were enacted at a time when many parents saw no purpose in their kids learning anything beyond a 2nd or 3rd grade reading ability and "sums." And the law was also passed in the progressive/"liberal fascist" era, when those running the country firmly believed that it didn't take parents to raise a child... it took the entire nation, and parents were merely unhelpful roadblocks to statist indoctrination. It took... trained and credentialed "experts."

Nowadays, parents pulling their kids out of school almost never do so because they don't want them to be educated; they pull their kids out because they do want them educated, and they don't believe their pathetic public school system is up to the job. It's long overdue to revisit those laws and make some very significant changes... while we still can.

The court in the current case relied much on In re Shinn, 195 Cal.App.2nd. 683, decided in 1961; but part of that ruling found:

To qualify as a bona fide school, a place of learning must have competent teachers capable of teaching. The evidence indicates that appellants, in conducting their self-education program, failed to fully comply with Education Code, section 7901, setting forth the courses required to be taught at a private school. Dr. Shinn admitted that the children did not receive any instruction in civics or in California history. Home education, regardless of its worth, is not the legal equivalent of attendance in school in the absence of instruction by qualified private tutors. Accordingly, the juvenile court had evidence to support its finding that the Shinn children were not being instructed in a private fulltime day school by persons capable of teaching. It was justified in concluding that appellants violated the compulsory education law.

In the current case (In re Rachel L., et al), the appellate court noted the following:

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.

Note that in both Shinn and Rachel L., courts found specifically that the homeschooling was academically inadequate. In addition, in the current case, the dependency court also found that the kids were kept in a "cloistered" environment and didn't interact sufficiently with kids outside the family.

So it's possible a better case could be made for homeschoolers being considered a "private school" if they did actually teach all subjects required in public school -- and also enrolled more than just the kids of one family. Thus, if a group of parents got together and created a private school, they might have a better case, even if they were not able to get the local school district to certify them. (They could perhaps appeal on the basis of bias, if they could show that their education skills were demonstrably as good as those of credentialed teachers at the local public school.)

But a much better case can be made for what I consider the real answer to the question of homeschooling: The California state legislature should add a new teaching credential for non-institutional teachers.

This credential should not require attending Ed school or engaging in a year of student teaching... which would be beyond the resources of most mothers or fathers. But it should require the potential homeschooling parents to take a test to ensure they know the required subjects well enough to teach them, plus some standardized testing of the kids to ensure that the kids are not just "learning the Bible" (or the Koran) and nothing more.

With such a credential, parents would of course legally be allowed to teach their own children, even without having to turn themselves into a private school (a kludgey work-around for the obvious animosity of the Department of Education towards homeschoolers).

The same new teaching credential should cover another kind of teacher as well, one with relevant of "life experience" to take the place of the "multiple subject teacher preparation program" and student teaching. It's unconscionable that, for example, a military instructor with years of experience training officers and enlisted men can't teach high school; but a sheltered 21 year old with a BA in Education from Cal State and a year of student teaching -- even with only the bare minimum subject-matter knowledge -- is qualified to teach any subject in any public school, except foreign language.

Naturally, the majority Democrats in the legislature will kill such a bill in committee; but that's fine... because that will give Republicans challenging the Democratic incumbents a real issue to use to fight their way into the state Assembly or Senate... an issue that appeals across the board from left to right, and especially among black, Hispanic, and other minority parents whose children are stuck in dreadful school districts -- as well as suburban soccer moms who are increasingly unhappy with the local district's NOW, NARAL, GLADD-written curriculum on sex education; their AIM and La Raza-written curriculum on California history (Aztlan!); the AMA's push to distribute condoms and teach kids how to use them in middle school; and the American Psychiatric Association recommendations on drugging kids in classrooms without even parental notification, let alone consent.

California is a liberal state; there is no doubt about it. But it's not as liberal as New York or Massachusetts... obviously, seeing how the vote runs here -- not just for the Governator but for president, too. In 2004, John Kerry won California by only 9 points, compared to 19 points in New York and a whopping 25 points in Kerry's home state. It's absurd that Democrats utterly dominate both chambers of the legislature. But one reason is that Republicans haven't been able to articulate any solid reason why they should oust incumbent Democrats.

Well, now they can. If, that is, the GOP can get off the stick and on the hump and start proposing popular, party-line crossing legislation... like making it easier for parents who want to homeschool and retired professionals to get credentialed, without having to drop everything and go back to college all over again.

There are some fields where you only want trained experts to participate. But when it comes to educating kids, having a knowledgeable and caring teacher and a disciplined environment (where kids can be actually punished for acting out, for example), is far more important than "expert" credentialing.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 7, 2008, at the time of 7:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2877

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Heather

I'm a credentialed teacher in California. I retired from the Navy in 1994 and had a dyslexic son who needed a high level of intervention to bring him up to grade level in language arts. In Hawaii, he'd gone to a school for dyslexics and/or gifted students for one year. I took their summer teachers program, just as I retired. I planned to homeschool him if there was no suitable public school where we moved to. And, in fact, I did for his 7th and 8th grades. California has many ways to homeschool. Most districts have some kind of independent studies program. In our case, we had a home visit from a credentialed teacher for 2 hours every 2 weeks. Texts and materials were provided. But, I was able to use the materials I deemed best for my son. I disliked intensely the state Social Studies book for 8th grade, all 1300+ pages filled with views of America as a land of victims, exploiters and the heroes - civil rights activists and government programs. 17 pages combined covered the Revolutionary and Civil wars. I Xeroxed the table of contents and didn't let him near that text. I used sources I got from the internet or library or on my bookshelves to teach him pride in his country. In two years, he caught up the 4 years he'd fallen behind. He then attended the local high school and did not progress in English -neither reading nor writing. I pulled him out his junior year, and again homeschooled him. His standardized language test scores improved 39 points after that one year (100 being highest possible score). Eight year later, he is now married, a dad, and an E-5 in the Navy, picked up to be an instructor in Great Lakes. I got my teaching credential after he graduated from high school.
The independent studies route lets parents get some financial and practical help on educational materials, and, help on knowing what the California standards are so they can be met. It takes a lot of time and responsibility, for the parent and child, but, it is an option that MANY homeschoolers can use without to much coercion or pain. Others use curriculae from on-line or correspondence schools which also meet California requirements.

The above hissed in response by: Heather [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2008 9:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Heather:

Alas, in the 1961 Shinn case above, the parents were using curricula from a correspondence school; but the principal refused to accept it... and the court went along with his decision. I don't know whether they even reviewed it themselves.

And there's the rub: You were able to homeschool your kid because the public schools in your area were broadminded enough to approve your program. Many, many school districts in California simply will not do so. When it's at the whim of the superintendent -- or even a local principal -- millions of parents are at the mercy of the system, or often a single man or woman who makes the call with no appeal.

It's rather like getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon; in some municipalities, such as Culver City, the sheriff or the police chief is pretty easy about granting them. But in others -- generally in the big cities, like Los Angeles -- they just don't grant any. L.A., for example, has granted no concealed-carry permits to anybody but off-duty police officers in decades.

Without a statewide credentialing procedure for people who are not full-time professional teachers, very few parents will find themselves in the enviable position of having a supportive school district. Most instead find that local body to be decidedly antagonistic.

(My best female friend homeschooled one of her children, who had severe mental problems; and even in that case, where the schools were undeniably unequipped to deal with him as a student, she had a very, very hard time getting them to agree. I think she did it illegally for some time. She did a great job, but it was in spite of, not because of her local school district.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2008 11:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

Bad Idea. Once you admit that the State has the
authority to regulate education you have killed
the home-schooling environment.
Better to fight them in the courts now than to
give them standing that strengthens their case
later. The home schooling people would be stronger even with a loss now than they would
be with a period of acquiescence.
The courts place an unreasonable belief
in stare decisis. A challenge, even an
unsuccessful one, weakens the State's case.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2008 11:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Bart Johnson:

Perhaps you can explain in more detail how it would help homeschooling were the California Supreme Court to uphold this ruling severely restricting homeschooling... because I'm not getting it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 12:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steelhand

"... 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."

This is the hammer they will always be able to use. No amount of church youth groups, scouting, local arts classes will ever live up to the level of "socialization" available in the undisciplined, liberal, statest school environment. You could present test scores double the community average, but to no avail.

The education community is invested in keeping your children under their domain. The more kids, the more money they get. They will use any mean necessary to keep your kids under their indoctrination system, and are convinced that it is for their benefit.

The laws were written at a time when wives were seldom as educated as teachers and curricula were unavailable to parents. They were also written at a time when the schools actually spent more time teaching material and enforced discipline.

But no matter. It takes a village, you know.

By the way, my kids all go to public schools, so I'm not a predisposed hater. I just want parents keeping their rights to raise children as they see fit.

The above hissed in response by: Steelhand [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 4:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

Dafydd ab Hugh (Grand High Lizard and Host):

Even if the State Supremes rule against the family, it has been pointed out that it was
probably a bad legal approach in the first place. It does not prevent them from refiling from a stronger legal position.

The State Legislature can override the Supremes
by passing a law and removing it from judicial
review. The Governator has already waded into
the surf declaring a desire to pass new law(s)
that would cover this situation.

Trying to make the best of an arbitrary ruling
by the government and the courts lends credence
to their position that they have a right to
meddle wherever they wish. Meekly accepting the
idea that the ruling has any merit whatsoever
simply emboldens the illegitimate offspring of
unmarried parents to continue their efforts to
control our lives.

Just because something is impossible is no reason
not to try.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 9:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

Dafydd, this ruling seems well-decided on the facts and law of the case, but it contains a LOT of editorializing outside of the law argued before the court, and fails to consider the main avenue legal homeschools take: registering a private school at the home address.

The decision mentions the four following ways to teach school at home:

1. Taught by a credentialed tutor.
2. Registered as a private school.
3. Covered under a private school's ISP.
4. Covered under a public charter school's ISP.
5. (not mentioned) Approved by a public school district.

#5 is one you assume is legal; actually, it's not. Public school board have no such authority, and never have. They can dispatch a tutor to give and check lessons and such; the people who cite "approval" for their courses of study are actually citing examples of that.

#2 is the leading way to legally home school, according to the HSLDA. This decision dismisses it in a single sentence without any cited precedent or reasoning; clearly this issue was never argued before the court.

#3 the court actually examines, because it was actually the issue that was argued before the court. I don't like the court's ruling on this, but I admit that it seems strong. I hope HSLDA will appeal this point.

#4 the court (again) dismisses without examination, and equally obviously without having the issue argued by an attorney.

All in all, the ruling is probably correct for the instant case; but it's a travesty of justice to make all of its unargued mauderings into binding precedent. This is why HSLDA is attempting to petition the state Supreme Court to depublish the decision.

Now, you offer a solution which you claim is more practical than fighting this ruling. Frankly, you have no idea of the practical issues and politics involved.

Practically speaking, credentialing can serve only one purpose: filtering out the losers. Please explain how to detect the losers in some reasonable way -- keeping in mind that the current credentialing system for public school teachers demonstrably doesn't work. (Do you have any idea what it takes to get a teacher's credential? The educational requirement isn't huge, mainly an education or liberal-arts related bachelors plus a few crowd control courses, but in order to filter out the real bad apples there's a kind of internship called 'student teaching'. We're talking at least year-long program for someone with a non-educational liberal arts bachelor's degree. How much of that will we force parents through?)

Politically, any credentialing program will have to make it past the self-proclaimed experts in the teacher's union, a group whose only interest is BLOCKING everything of this sort. Even if they can't block it, you're living in a dream world to think they can't put enough requirements and roadblocks in it to make homeschooling effectively impossible.

A much better idea -- still more intrusive than most states -- would be to require tests of the children to check the results (as opposed to inspecting the teachers).

I think, and the HSLDA agrees, that the status quo ante was, if not optimal, at least entirely acceptable. ("Optimal" would involve home schools being explicitly mentioned in the law and given the same basic terms as any private school.)

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 9, 2008 11:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Wtanksleyjr:

You rightly note that the legislature, in thrall to the teachers unions, isn't interested in allowing homeschooling; then you propose as a solution that the legislature should just require nothing more than "tests of the children to check the results."

Well, that would be nice -- but it's not going to fly in this uberliberal legislature. I suspect a special credential wouldn't fly right now either; but at least it would be a more effective platform on which to run Republican candidates than just a bill allowing homeschooling without any test of the homeschoolers... at least for Democratic voters who still think you need to be an "expert" to teach anybody's kids, including your own. (A lot of this is the legacy of the dreadful Dr. Spock.)

As to how much student teaching, I believe that if the subject is broached at all, it wouldn't be hard to argue against any student teaching at all -- provided you're only teaching your own kids. After all, by the time you're formally schooling them, you've been teaching them for some years already.

But the other advantage of a new kind of credential is to encourage retired people with special life experience to get into teaching at actual public schools, where they will be far more effective than most teachers.

I start from the premise -- formed from having spent my entire school career in reasonably good public schools -- that the biggest problem in public schools today (and the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to notice) is teacher incompetence. That's the one the unions try hardest to sweep under the rug, blaming everything else you can imagine -- from classroom size to equipment to books to computers to the curriculum.

None of that matters a rip if the teacher just plain sucks. I'd love to see retired career police-academy instructors, military instructors, engineers, doctors, and so forth able to teach school without all the rigmarole of having to spend years at ed school.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 9, 2008 11:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

Dafydd, I persist in finding your writing perspicuous and your analyses profound (not to mention "numquam inceptor semper peractior" *). I also insist that on any subject on which I choose to opine, I am correct. :-)

Seriously, I do admit that your goal of getting a new type of credential is highly worthy... But I do ask that you not step on us homeschoolers' heads while you're doing it :-). This ruling is (frankly) a knockover; getting it depublished is likely and getting it overruled is possible (although I'm willing to suspect that it's correctly ruled for the specific case which was argued before the court, even if it was argued by gov't-appointed lawyers).

The status quo, as bad as it is for education in general, is actually quite fine for homeschooling, as it treats homeschools the same as public schools.

Again, there's no bill needed to allow homeschooling without a special test; that's how things are now, and how they'll remain unless the our seven black-robed masters (on the CA supreme court) fail to allow the case to be depublished.

To join your voice to mine in urging the depublishing, visit the HSLDA website and sign the petition.

[*] I tried to translate your motto, but the Latin I posted actually is better translated as "never the starter, always the finisher." I'll try again on some later comment.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 10, 2008 9:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Wtanksleyjr:

Seriously, I do admit that your goal of getting a new type of credential is highly worthy... But I do ask that you not step on us homeschoolers' heads while you're doing it :-). This ruling is (frankly) a knockover; getting it depublished is likely and getting it overruled is possible (although I'm willing to suspect that it's correctly ruled for the specific case which was argued before the court, even if it was argued by gov't-appointed lawyers).

First of all, I don't think such a new credential would "step on" Homeschoolers; it would likely be an alternative path to homeschooling... it wouldn't outlaw the current method of declaring oneself a private school unless it were deliberately written to do so.

And why would it be? Is the bill's author secretly an enemy of homeschooling? If so, then bring that out and try to force the Trojan horse to be stripped from the bill.

Note again, I don't believe such a bill would pass... now; but it would be a popular and effective wedge for Republicans to run for the California legislature; and a future legislature would then be much more likely to pass it.

Second, I am very dubious that the state Supreme Court will "depublish" the ruling, even if they decide it was correct for this case. They would have to decide that this case was sui generis, and that the appellate court went wildly beyond its jurisdiction in applying it to all cases in the future.

Apart from your support of the concept of homeschooling, what would make the state Supreme Court decide that otherwise valid appellate-court rulings shouldn't apply beyond the single case? You presume too much: You presume that the justices are all "secret soldiers" in your own cause.

To feel compelled to depublish the ruling, they would have to believe there was an actual right to homeschool. But if they believe that, why wouldn't they overturn the entire ruling, or at least hold that there had to be a retrial to examine whether the schooling was adequate according to standards A, B, and C? Or even hold that the standards used by the lower court were correct, but that the judge misapplied them.

I am very skeptical that the court would hold that the appellate court was right to force these particular kids into the public or private school system -- but at the same time hold that future truancy prosecutions couldn't use this case as precedent.

The fundamental problem is that there is no mention of a general homeschooling exemption in the state constitution or the California Education Code; it's only considered legal by virtue of being unnoticed.

In particular, the legal argument you cite (the "private school" dodge) depends critically upon a particular interpretation of section 48222 of the California Education Code, one that runs counter to the intention of the busybody reformers who pushed compulsory public education: That simply "affiliating" with a private school elsewhere makes you a private school yourself, even if your kids do not actually attend the original private school (which may even be in another state); and that as a private school, you are exempt from any requirement to teach particular subjects at a particular pace.

The Homeschool Association of California argues:

The California Education Code provides that "all children between the ages of 6 and 16 must attend a public full-time day school unless otherwise exempted." (section 48200) This "compulsory schooling law" has two statutory exemptions:

1. The private tutoring exemption (section 48224) for children who are instructed for at least three hours each day, 175 days a year by a teacher who holds a valid California teaching credential for the grade taught, and

2. The private school exemption (section 48222) for children who are enrolled in a full-time private school. There are no laws that establish the minimum standards for the teachers or curricula of private schools. The only legal requirement for private schools is that they file a Private School Affidavit (section 33190) with their local County Superintendent of Schools.

(This is false, by the way; there are all sorts of legal requirements to run a private school, including, e.g., certification that children are actually being taught; a lack of impermissible racial and sexual discrimination; federal, state, and local regulations and codes governing the particulars of the facilities themselves, including the Americans with Disabilities Act; health and safety codes that apply to schools -- even private schools -- but not to private homes; and so forth.)

It is facially improbable that the original socialist, totalitarian reformers who enacted the cumpulsory schooling code in the late nineteenth century intended it to be so easily circumvented by simply "filing an affidavit."

This argument is akin to the tax protesters who argue that, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, they don't need to pay... because only money derived from copyrights and patents constitutes "income": They generally spend the next twenty years futilely appealing their convictions -- from prison.

In addition, 48222 refers to "children who are being instructed in a private full-time day school." The words "full-time" could easily be interpreted as a school day the same length as the school day in an accredited public school (seven or eight hours, whatever it is). How many parents can prove that they are actually homeschooling their kids seven hours each day?

I also dispute the idea that current law puts no requirements whatsoever on the curricula of private schools. Suppose a madrass registered as a private school in California... but all that it taught was the Koran; the students simply spent all day, every day, memorizing suras, and no other instruction was given. Would such a school be deemed a legal substitute for public education? I seriously doubt it would.

The private tutor exemption (section 48224) only requires the tutor to teach for three hours a day; but that tutor must have a "valid state
credential for the grade taught." Assuming the parent doesn't have such -- and if he or she does, then there is no problem to begin with -- this section doesn't even come up.

Thus, to get the interpretation you want, you are relying upon a court being (a) completely sympathetic to homeschoolers, while at the same time being (b) a court of judicial activists -- because you want them to help you circumvent the obvious understanding of the law when it was enacted.

I'm sure the legislative debate in 1874 was chockablock with scathing references to parents who claim they can give their kids "all the larnin' they needs right to home." Especially girls... reformers were particularly concerned that parents might believe there was no reason for girls to learn to read or write.

That would surely have been the reformers' argument at the time; and it was probably a fair argument, given many people's attitude towards schoolhouse education at that time. Their analysis of the present situation was probably accurate; it was the reformers' alleged "solution" that was wrong.

So you need a court that is conservative enough to support homeschooling (a huge chunk of which occurs because parents are unhappy with the liberal nature of public schools) -- yet simultaneously liberal enough to be judicial activists. And even if this Supreme Court decides to "depublish" the ruling, you are at the mercy of a later Supreme Court that finds the opposite.

I understand the libertarian impulse behind not wanting the government to get involved in any way with homeschooling; I was a libertarian myself, until the libs went utterly wacko on the critical issue of national defense, following L. Neil Smith down the slippery slope of denial. But honestly, you would be on far, far firmer ground if you actually had a legislative statute giving homeschooling (and an alternative path to teaching generally) legal recognition.

With that "homeschooling" or "life experience" credential, for example, you certainly would qualify for the section 48224 tutor exemption, which gives you far more latitude... and doesn't require you to argue in court the legislative work-around that a mother teaching her own child constitutes a "full-time private school."

It would also be a law that made the state of California more libertarian, just as the federal Bill of Rights makes the United States more libertarian. There is no contradiction in enacting liberating legislation to free citizens from more odious, more regulating legislation.

Finally, if you want political support from ordinary people, you are going to have to accept some sort of testing to ensure that homeschooled kids are actually being taught, not simply indoctrinated. There are certain absolute demands we must make on all schools (this list is not exhaustive):

  • All kids need to learn to read and write to a sufficient level;
  • All kids need to learn mathematics;
  • All kids need to learn basic science and technology. In particular, all kids need to learn modern evolutionary theory -- they're not required to believe it, of course, but they must at least know what they are rejecting;
  • All kids need to learn basic American and state history, politics and civics, literature and the arts (appreciation if not being able to create art themselves)... the basic building blocks of civic culture;
  • And all kids need to get a certain amount of exercise (exercising something other than their thumbs on the Gameboy controls).

Children who are not taught these subjects are being intellectually abused: My biggest beef with the public school system is that in some districts or individual schools, kids are not being taught these subjects, primarily due to teacher incompetence and goofy leftist educational theory. The current method of credentialing privileges those who parrot the leftist views of the California Teachers Association, not those who can actually teach; look how many credentialed teachers in California cannot even pass the CBEST, which is less difficult than the SAT.

Unless homeschoolers make it clear that they will teach kids all the required subjects -- and will allow independent evaluation, rather than demand everyone just take their word for it -- they will not be taken seriously. But with that guarantee, they will have a great deal of public support.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 10, 2008 3:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

BTW, your site's signin isn't working right -- it let me type this up, preview it, and submit, and then produced an error saying I wasn't signed in. Fine, but it acted like I was... Here I thought something had been fixed and it was remembering me "till the end of days". (Hmm, maybe it WAS remembering me and giving me what I deserved.)

First of all, I don't think such a new credential would "step on" Homeschoolers; it would likely be an alternative path to homeschooling... it wouldn't outlaw the current method of declaring oneself a private school unless it were deliberately written to do so.

Okay, I'm all for this; it sounds like a big win for public schools as well, which I support with more than just money (although NOT by sending my children to them).

I'd gotten the impression that you thought this was a better solution than depublishing or appealing this case. (Actually, I should add that even if neither happens, I'm sure a good lawyer can argue around its precedent -- it's very lightly argued, after all, and originally applied to such a tiny case.)

"The words "full-time" could easily be interpreted as a school day the same length as the school day in an accredited public school"

But I've seen it used to refer to the number of days in the schoolyear. The problem is that the law doesn't specify or define this at all (I just read a paper by a JD on the topic -- neither friendly nor unfriendly, just covering precedent and analysing meanings). Either way, given reasonable records, which are required by other court-established law, showing that progress proportionate to that achieved at other full-time private schools is certainly possible.

The Homeschool Association of California argues:

Well, no, they don't. Good link, but bad summary: you're excerpting a small part of their FAQ and claiming it's the totality of their instruction on how to establish a legal homeschool. This is farcical; an FAQ is nothing more than a crude introduction. Even at that, if you'd kept on reading you'd find that the questions you'd asked are answered: for example, it mentions that certain subjects must be covered in the curricula (contrary to your claim "I also dispute the idea that current law puts no requirements whatsoever on the curricula of private schools"). They don't mention in the FAQ the Supreme Court decisions that established when and where the subjects must be taught, but they DO document the subjects as part of their training.

This is false, by the way; there are all sorts of legal requirements to run a private school, including, e.g., certification that children are actually being taught... and so forth.

There are two points to be made. First, I include in the "and so forth" laws that contrary to your statement do not apply to "private schools"; rather, they apply to all institutions that match certain conditions (accessible to the public, or offering a service to the general public, or some other term of law). These laws might apply to the private home or might not, but they do not apply simply because the home is being used to educate children; they would apply (or not) for reasons listed in the specific law in question.

Second, the only "certification that children are actually being taught" is in the affidavit that establishes the private school. There's also required proof that children are being taught, such as an attendance record, teaching plan, graded assignments, and so forth, but those are not "certification"s, and anyhow the FAQ mentioned those.

Thus, to get the interpretation you want, you are relying upon a court being ... a court of judicial activists -- because you want them to help you circumvent the obvious understanding of the law when it was enacted.

Grin. I like that. No, not true -- because the law is based not on what people claimed was their intent at the time (and you don't present ANY evidence for your claims on that, by the way; the controversy at the time wasn't homeschooling, but rather simple truancy and lack of education), but on the actual words they actually managed to get past the legislature. If that group didn't get the words to express their intent, it's possibly because their intent was opposed by some other group. And the actual words have been read over many years and interpreted consistently (well, the DOE disagrees, but they have an axe to grind) by thousands of private and chartered public ISPs, as well as individual homeschools (whose opinions matter less, since they lack a stable of lawyers).

Finally, if you want political support from ordinary people, you are going to have to accept some sort of testing to ensure that homeschooled kids are actually being taught

I said this before you did, so you're not arguing against me here! :-)

-Wm

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 11, 2008 12:31 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved