Dear Stupid People
5 03 2008You know the ones: they’re blogging like crazy (because they are) and they’re saying this -
California made homeschooling illegal.
No, that’s not what’s happened. Homeschooling has always been illegal in California. Parents set up private schools in their homes (not exactly the letter of the law). This case is about whether or not homeschooling is a constitutional right.
1. California reiterated a known fact: Homeschooling is NOT a constitutional ‘right’. Sorry folks, if that makes homeschooling illegal - then most of us are doing it illegally. Oregon’s constitution doesn’t give me a specific “right” to homeschool - Oregon’s educational code does. Sure, you can interpret parts of Oregon’s constitution to certain freedoms, but it does not specifically give me the “right” to homeschool. Neither does California’s constitution.
2. California is unique in its approach to “homeschooling” as it doesn’t recognize it as such, and never has. Specifically, children in California are required to be educated in a public school, a private school they attend daily, or by a tutor for that grade level who is assumed to have a teaching certificate. Teaching certificates are not required in California private schools. For years, parents have legally circumvented the actual law by forming a private school in their home, or registering with an “umbrella” school which in turn is registered as a private school. Now, this option isn’t legal to the letter of the law, as homeschooled students do not attend the (umbrella) private school daily - however, the state has allowed the status quo for many years. Conventional private schools in California are subject to certain laws and provisions, for safety and health, and a private school in the home is not. California has let this slide for almost three decades, because an issue such as is represented in the Long family has not as yet surfaced. Now it has.
3. One family was brought up on charges of child abuse. In the course of the investigation, the children were found to be “homeschooled” under one of the status quo but not exactly to the letter of the law legal accepted forms of California educational code. The ruling court ordered the children in the family back into public or private school because in the court’s opinion, the children were getting a poor education - coupled with abuse, this was one of the terms of keeping the children in the home. There is now the argument that the family has the right (under the constitution) to religious freedom. Yeah, they do, but it doesn’t include homeschooling, which ISN’T a right under constitutional law. The rights of the children to receive a compulsory education are separate from the rights of the parents to instruct their children in religious belief - something they’re still free to do, just put away the belt, dad.
Here’s Doc’s synopsis.
Fundy family isolates and whips kids in generic example of Christian homeschool home. Denim jumpers, big Ford van, quiverful, rod of correction, and the Bible as curriculum. Insert your favorite stereotypical fundy homeschool term - it’s probably applicable.
Kids get old enough to rebel and do - by turning abusive father in.
Court demands that unless fundy parents want to lose custody of children, they put them in school, where the oversight of adults outside the family may prevent further abuse AND the children may actually get some education beyond homemaking and family headship. Court points out that homeschooling isn’t a right under the Constitution. (Duh)
Family gets upset, calls it abuse of power and demands their right to religious training - separate from education of course, but family doesn’t view it this way and is ecstatic that WND picks up the story and puts their unique spin on it.
WND is using this family to further its campaign against California schools and their inclusion of hate free curriculum.
Dumb Christians who can’t think their way out of a paper sack continue the hysteria by mass postings on message boards, email lists, and blogs.
And now we have California made homeschooling illegal.
With all the frantic posturing going on now in California’s legislature, it’s probably no coincidence that this issue is less about education, and more about Christianity, anti gay sentiment, and the conservative fear that they’re bound to lose November’s election.
And my girl’s still in the race!
Somebody should wade into the fundie homeschool blogs and leave a helpful link to this explanation of CA homeschool law. I’m sure they’d really appreciate it
Go Hillary
Thank you so much for this synopsis. Since I don’t live in or near California, I’d only heard whisperings. I’m glad to have your take on it.
I dare ya
Dare ya to post this you know where. 
I’d do it but I’m off to bed early as I don’t feel good… but omg I would love to hork this (put it in my own words) and argue it with them..
They are so clueless…
toni
Here ya go:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:-gfLatRwHh8J:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B192601.DOC+JD00773&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
They were ordered to put the kids in school because the father is an abusive jackass and the mother is a negligent doormat..
toni
Thanks for the simple run down on this. I haven’t really looked at what “that forum” was saying…but I can imagine the panic. Thanks toni for sharing the link, too, so I can make up my own mind.
BTW, love the new site. I love all the downloads linked on one page. Incredible resource as always…
“Dumb Christians who can’t think their way out of a paper sack” - Thanks for the laugh!
And Hillary’s still alive-how great is that?!!!!!!!
Thanks Doc.
I will be referring many I know to this.
Sharon, that’s to distinguish between the stupid ones, and the thoughtful ones who actually use the brain God graced them with.
Toni, the ruling I read didn’t include all that nasty background info, just the most recent allegations of abuse. Now I’m doubly sure this isn’t a homeschooling issue at all - it’s probably a good ruling that is in the best interest of this individual family - and will probably benefit the scores of children being raised in similar situations.
Oh, and contrary to my monthly goal not to lurk at boards I’ve been banned from, I read the latest from the mindless drones - and predictably, the ever moronic Ellie just doesn’t get it, does she? I choked back a little vomit as I realized I was nodding my head and agreeing with good old Colleen. ACK - see why I don’t read that board?
[…] post that you won’t find in the carnival but is worth reading is this one by Doc. She lays to rest the fears that “California made homeschooling illegal”. While I still […]
I heard about this briefly somewhere in the blogosphere.
I dismissed it as inconsequential because I thought it had more to do with child abuse than homeschooling per se. Since homeschooling is legal in all fifty states, I figured there was more to the case than has been discussed thus far.
I think there are reasons to be concerned (not hysterical) that the judge made the comments he (was it a he?) did about “uncertified” instructors, because it indicates a misunderstanding about the California law, if I read you right. But I believe that you are right–this is not so much about homeschooling as it is about child abuse. The family in question has been under scrutiny for abuse for quite some time.
Again, although homeschoolers ought to be pro-active about judicial interpretations–which could cause them legal problems–if the interpretation is wrong, it would be thrown out on appeal. However, I think it is best to consider the political fallout of rushing to the defense of parents who have previously been shown to be child abusers. It muddies the waters for the non-abusive majority of homeschoolers. The family may have a point about their intentions regarding homeschooling, but they are certainly in the wrong for the abuse of their children. That much larger issue here obscures the question of homeschooling. They are lucky that the children have not been removed completely. There may be valid reasons why California has not removed them, but that ought to be of more concern to us here than the homeschooling issue. As usual Doc, you’ve hit the nail on head. It is the children’s safety that should worry us here, not the issue of homeschooling, which is still alive and well in California.
Yes, the problem has arisen because lay people have taken some comments of the judges, and called them a “ruling”. The statements are simply part of the court document, they don’t constitute a “ruling”. The “ruling” is the last part of the document, where all the “where as” terminology starts. The document also contains a lot of background about the awful child abuse the Long family is accused of, but nobody cares about that? Come on. Honestly, this is just like last year’s California SB 777 curriculum change - the actual “law” says that teachers can’t badmouth gays - the xtian spin is that all students will now be indoctrinated into a homosexual lifestyle. It’s crazy, it’s stupid, and it highlights just how ignorant a large part of the population is. It’s scary, the logic people use to form their opinions….
Every now and then I’m really glad I don’t live in California anymore. As progressive as it is, it’s still backwards in many areas when it comes to allowing responsible people to make responsible choices.
OTOH, the state I live in now is a hypocritical skid mark on the underwear of life. Even if it does allow homeschooling. (Got to keep the fundies happy.)
But the entire discussion can (and would, I imagine) be used to set precedent, and the one the judge wants to set would make homeschooling as people do it in CA to be illegal, I believe. People would look back at his notes and use it in later rulings.
I think a lot of the issue is that a lot of people didn’t quite realize they were operating as a loophole.
No, precedents are used only in other cases, not in setting law. The Judge in this case can’t make new laws - legislators do that. The Judge ruled fairly based on existing law. If other cases come before the court, they’ll probably be ruled illegal also - as the law clearly states that children who are tutored at home require a certified teacher. Children who attend private schools do not. Children enrolled in umbrella schools are NOT attending the school, and therefore, must use a certified teacher to tutor at home. Easy solution: Refile your affidavit yourself, forming a private school in your home. Duh.
I note that you have argued that there is no constitutional right to homeschooling. I would disagree - this is precisely what the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States exists to address. Well, not strictly the issue of homeschooling, per se, but the amendment does state quite clearly that the people maintain rights that aren’t delineated by the Constitution. These rights are universal human rights that have been recognized in most nations and cultures prior to the modern age - and they include such rights as the right to travel, the right to buy, sell, and own private property, the right to raise a family, and other such rights were are so incorporated into human nature that it isn’t strictly necessary to list them all.
The right to homeschool is merely an offshoot of the right to raise a family. Neither the US Constitution nor the California constitution specifically address this right, to be fair, but this is not to say that this right does not exist. Nor is it to say that the State has a right to demand that all children are taught by accredited teachers. The State may have a right to set standards for the educational equivalent of a diploma, but they explicitly do not have the right to compel parents to follow any particular curriculum. Except for in the nanny-state psuedo-communist agenda, which is so popular these days.
Jeff, I didn’t argue anything - I explained what the California court “argued”. State education is covered by the state law (and constitution), and compulsory attendance laws supersede your definition of a federal and arguably ambiguous “right”. The court in California bases their decisions on California state law. In the state of California, a court has deemed that the Long family does NOT have the right to homeschool - because homeschooling isn’t defined under California law, and what it does define as educational code, the Long family was not following the law. Maybe you should read the documents I provide in the next post.
I’d disagree that this family is fundamentalist. They’re not nearly organized enough to subscribe to anyone’s point of view other than the clearly mentally unstable “father’s.” I read part of their previous history (abuse allegations and findings, general and persistent disarray) and it’s horrifying. All those kids should have been removed years ago after the first time the family showed up on law enforcement radar — when he beat the eldest bloody and she went to live with her mom. Sadly, all the rest he made with the woman he’s currently married to so they had no place to run. Now, many years later, only the youngest two are still at “home.”
Thinking about stuff like this enrages me — too many little damaged innocents with no recourse. Pardon me while I go find something to kick, hit or throw.
[…] can be readily observed by outsiders, as a condition of the family retaining custody of the kids.Doc has a more detailed analysis on her blog. Really, after reading what the kids in that family have […]
C - you may be right, but I never use the term “fundy” or “fundamentalist” in a very positive light, because to me, the term itself is indicative of people who don’t think for themselves, not an attribute that I recognize in the lovely Christians I’ve met, like the 100 or so currently in my town rebuilding homes. I think the organization is Christian Aid Ministries, and there’s also a contingent of pretty conservative Mennonites, but nicer people I’ve never worked with in my life. I had the chance to discuss the California ruling with many of them (nearly all whom homeschool - giving them the freedom to go from disaster to disaster and help) and every single one of them believe that this is more a child abuse issue than a homeschooling issue, and agree with me that parents in California will continue to educate their children at home, as they have for decades. And interestingly enough, for people who travel, not one of them belongs to HSLDA; a few voiced concerns that HSLDA’s agenda had less to do with homeschooling and more to do with badmouthing the government, interesting perspectives.
Doc - How very cool. I had no idea such an organization existed. I get twitchy at certain terms, fundamentalist being one of them, because I’ve yet to run across folks who can apply that term AND strict logic or compassion to their mindset(s), yet they shout all kinds of religious hyperbole from the roof tops and seem to expect good things to come from such actions. I recognized a couple of decades back that People Who Strive to be Ignorant are my biggest peeve. There seem to be ever more of them. (I’d contend that the Long family falls well past even fundys. ;o) On the other hand — these people you spoke with about HSLDA — I’d love to hear more should you care to share. The organization sounds compelling, as do the opinions on HSLDA.
Great synopsis and thanks for clarifying! I knew with HSDLA involved, it was something that probably involved some type of fundie family.
[…] what I love about Doc, she doesn’t sugar coat things. You should also read her other posts on the subject. Be sure to read the comments too for some lively […]