My last word on the subject
6 03 2008For those of you interested in forming your own opinion, without benefit of the hysteria produced by WND, HSLDA, or Christians in general:
Background court document (11/07)
Pay close attention to
1) California educational law does not make provisions for “home school”.
2) California educational law is very specific in terms of compulsory eduction.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
The only references to certification have to do with the fact that the Long children are “enrolled” in a private school (Sunland Christian), when they’re actually being taught at home by their mother. The educational law clearly states that children can be taught IN a private school, or by a certified teacher. The Long children’s educational circumstances do not follow either model.
Nowhere does the ruling state that ALL teaching in California must be done by a certified teacher. All a family has to do is declare their home a private school. Typical of Christian spin, the ruling has been misinterpreted to include ALL California homeschoolers, when it applies ONLY to the two Long children.
I don’t know why this case is such a surprise. The judge is ruling from existing laws and precedent. If you homeschool in California, perhaps its time to stop being paranoid about potential oversight and lobby for some laws that protect your ability to home educate. But first, dump your umbrella school and file your own affidavit.
If after reading those court documents, you’re still too stupid to understand the possible implications to your own situation, please, put your children in public school. You’re not qualified to teach them.
Thanks, from California.
Skipped around a bit and it looks like some are using the ruling as a call to arms against leftist anti-family socialists, aka Hillary. In fact, I burned dinner last night. And, cut my hair too short. All because of her.
I love the discussions today: We’ll have Obama and HC in the white house, it’s just a question of who’s on top, and who’s on the bottom. “Cough”.
Dude, I just quoted you.. sort of.. I didn’t say where I got the quote and I edited it a bit, but I just finally spoke up because now they are posting this stupid petition that HSLDA is trying to get signed.
This is going to be fuuuuuuuuuuun
toni
Well, it’s pretty sad commentary if the HSLDA, a LEGAL organization, can’t read a court document and realize that there is NO RULING designating that all children in California need to be instructed by a certified teacher. What a world we live in.
I do agree. I mean I sympathize with them as they are in one of the hardest states, but this has nothing to do with the general concensus of homeschooling, only this family.
But then again.. look at who we are dealing with..
toni
Is it just me, or are people missing that it is doubtful that these children are getting anything close to an “education.” I am all for homeschooling - I plan to do it myself - but I understand that “schooling” or, more accurately, “education” needs to be a major part of that arrangement. It may look different in many ways - schedule, use of curriculum, etc. - than a traditional school - but wouldn’t even unschoolers be able to define what their child is learning/studying at the moment? I am just appalled at the number of folks who look at this and totally disregard the fact that any education the children was receiving was marginal at best.
Also, I am a Christian - and I love this site. I am one of those Christians who tries hard to employ my God-given brain cells on a daily basis, and who looks forward to voting for either Hilary or Barak in November. Thanks for not lumping us all in with the crazies - and thanks for sharing so much of your life.
[…] California Child Abuse Is Not Home Education 7 03 2008 Here are select perspectives from different world views, saying some of the same important things.Doc’s “My Last Word on the Subject”: […]
The very condensed version: Homeschooling in California is actually pretty easy; really, the hardest part is coming up with a catchy name for your “private school.” Once a year, you go online and file an affidavit declaring yourself a private school (3 minutes max); then, you make sure your students are in attendance for the number of days mandated. There are no portfolios to keep, nor tests to take. And, if you don’t register as a private school, you can join an unbrella school (as a faculty member), which should then file that paperwork in your place. Or, you can be a credentialed teacher and bypass the private school option. So, while “homeschooling continues to be illegal; options like setting up a private school (w/o a credential) in your own home make it pretty easy.
The ridiculuous reactions are just providing fodder, I would guess, for those who already question the aptitude and fitness of homeschooling parents. I’m glad you’re posting, Doc.
I just keep wondering where these thousands of dolts, AND the reporters submitting their stories, have reached the conclusion that this judge has declared that only certified teachers can teach students. That’s not what the ruling says, and it’s not what the existing law says. A judge doesn’t set new law, he makes rulings on cases using existing law. I believe the judge made the correct ruling based on the law at hand, that clearly states that children enrolled in a private school must daily attend that school. Why use the umbrella scheme? It’s obviously not in line with the law - and you don’t need a law degree to see that it was a set up for problems from the very beginning. Filing the affidavit and declaring your home a homeschool seems to be the best legal option.
The judge found that the children were enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private school.
The children were actually being taught at home by their mother.
The law doesn’t say “faculty members can teach enrolled students at home”, the legal “assumption” would be that children enrolled in a school attend that school, and since the children were being taught at home, the law states that they need to have a certified tutor.
The judge is completely aware of the practice of school-at-homers registering with umbrella schools and then using this ‘loophole’ (which isn’t a loophole, it’s a status quo practice that’s been ignored by officials) to homeschool. He simply points out in his ruling that the practice isn’t legal and doesn’t extend to the parents constitutional rights.
He didn’t declare homeschooling illegal - it never was legal, as homeschooling is not address in California’s educational code. How hard is this to understand????
Hopefully now, legislators and home education leaders can get together and come up with the legal terminology to protect homeschooling. Why hasn’t this been done before? Because homeschooling associations have lobbied their members against it, saying “it’s worked for 30 years, we don’t need to open a can of legal worms, don’t worry, we’ll be fine” all the while, a case like this was just begging to challenge the status quo.
California homeschooling advocates have nobody to blame but themselves. The judge interpreted the law correctly.
My boss would be thrilled to discover that thanks to you, Doc, I just read the entire background court document! Ah, what’s an hour in the grand scheme of things?
I can’t find anything that indicates a threat to other families who wish to provide their children a legitimate education in their own home. Of course, there probably IS a threat to other home school families if their children continually run away, cut themselves with razor blades, report sexual abuse in the home and demonstrate an unfamiliarity with even simple educational subjects. (Gee! Ya think??) The wording is very clear that the schooling order by the court is an attempt to loosen the stranglehold a very sick man has on his sorely abused family. It’s pretty obvious that he is not dedicated to a particular religious, ethical or social principal, but rather uses whatever concept supports his mindset at the moment. He simply wishes not to be held accountable for his poor choices. In the last paragraph, Wifey has suddenly discovered “an Indian in her woodpile” and they’re waiting to see if Tribal Court cares to take responsibility for the case. LOL, they’re in for a surprise there, aren’t they? If you were a true practicing fundy, would you want your problems hammered out in Tribal Court? Out of the pan and into the fire.
In the meantime, it’s just another opportunity to gather up and dust off the tin foil hats, and spin a specific incident into a generalized threat that doesn’t really exist. After all, drama’s more interesting than common sense most days, isn’t it?
Have a great weekend! The daphne’s in bloom down here on the valley floor. Smells heavenly!
SV
[…] a hat tip to Doc who also has good information on this […]
Good post Doc. I disregard WND articles so it wasn’t until the LA Times and other mainstream papers started declaring homeschooling illegal in CA that I started paying attention.
Thanks for clarifying
When the 2nd Appellate Court decided to publish its ruling, its opinion went from just the question of whether this one troubled family ought to be allowed to homeschool (about which there may be legitimate concerns) to a legal precedent affecting all 166,000 homeschoolers in the state. That’s unfortunately the way the CA judicial system works. If you don’t want to believe me, look it up for yourself.
The best option would be for the CA Supreme Court to “depublish” the ruling, which would make it only binding upon the Longs and not anyone else.
Obviously I’m familiar with how courts work, and more importantly, I can read the ruling and understand what the judge means, something you, your ilk, and the lawyers at HSLDA apparently can’t do. Homeschooling isn’t, and never has been, legal in California. Children enrolled in private school are assumed to spend their days at the private school (legal if you’ve filed your own affidavit and made your home a private school) OR if you have a private tutor in your home, with credentials. Don’t be so obtuse - enrolling in an “umbrella” school never satisfied the letter of the law, not now, not 30 years ago when homeschooling parents believed they found a loophole in the private schooling law. This ruling does NOT affect those who have filed their own R-4 and made their home a private school. It also doesn’t affect the nearly 1.5 million students in traditional private schools in the state who are being taught (at least to some part) by teachers without credentials, because credentials aren’t required in private schools. If the ruling supposedly affects homeschoolers, it affects the privately schooled also - don’t let your brain explode considering that - where’s the outcry from the private school sector? There isn’t one. A judge didn’t say “hey, you don’t have teaching credentials, you can’t teach your kid, but you can send her to a private school, where the teachers don’t have credentials, and they can teach her” (Well, actually, he did say that - but it’s because he wants OTHER ADULTS watching the Long children).
The gay card got played today by Sean Hannity re” CA public schools, the comdemnation of which this child abuse has been twisted to serve:
Radio Reporting Falls In Line With World Net Daily Propaganda
You know… I just don’t give a shit about the whole California kerfuffle. The fact that fundies care so much about it just makes me even less concerned. If you can’t read a simple set of regulations and understand what they do (and what they don’t) mean, then you definitely ARE unqualified to teach. Period.
You’re right in your understanding that this will not affect all 166,000 homeschooled kids in CA. However this ruling does jeopardize any other families who are using an “umbrella school” program such as the Sunland program — something that is a common practice around the country, though given its iffy legality, I have no idea how common it is in CA. With this precedent, any family that uses such a program does face much heavier legal repercussions if they come to the attention of local child protective or truancy authorities and the parents could be charged with educational neglect regardless of the academic standing of the children. This ruling sets a precedent to make that possible.
You can choose for yourself whether you deem that a bad thing; my sense is to oppose anything that can impose limits on families’ academic choices not because of a deficiency in the education provided but because of a regulation that makes no sense in light of the well-known “my house is a private school” loophole.
Those folk in California using an umbrella school should be worried. There is no provision in the California educational code for what they’re doing. Homeschool association and organization leaders knew this years ago - again, the status quo doesn’t make it legal. As for anyone else in the country - it has no bearing on other state laws, say, Oregon for example, because our educational code is distinct, and our choices regarding homeschooling are well established with code law. California’s isn’t. The case in California isn’t going to have any affect on any other state’s already established laws - California doesn’t have a homeschooling law - is that hard for you to understand? And in my opinion, this family, with its deplorable history of repeated abuse against the children, needs the oversight that school will provide. Probably lots of other families (most of them conservative controlling and prone to physical discipline) need the oversight too. If you don’t have anything to hide - if you’re not beating your kids, then why worry? And really, I’m curious, how does this ruling set a precedent for charging any family with any crime? This family has repeatedly ignored previous orders from the court to attend family counseling, have their children evaluated - they are in violation of several court orders. Ignoring the law has a long precedence in the court - it usually gets you in trouble. It’s not like this was the functional family, and the authorities just stepped in and said “hey, send your kids to school, we hate homeschoolers”. Use just a tiny bit of logic. It isn’t my view that parents should have the “right” to do anything to their children, whether it be beating them, or failing to school them. I’m more likely to look out for the best interests of a child over the right of the parent to screw the kid up. To each her own. And for what it’s worth, a “loop hole” has some sort of legal validity. The private school at home option is valid and those parents have no dog in this fight. The “register with a private school that isn’t really a private school” isn’t even a little bit valid. The law clearly states such.
You posted on my blog, noting that this is a child welfare issue, not a homeschooling issue. I agree that this is a child welfare issue. It is also, however, a homeschooling issue.
The court decision I reference above clearly and explicitly indicates that by California law, homeschools are not at all to be equated with private schools. It states, in part, “Additionally, the Turner [a case used to provide legal precedent for the present case] court rejected, and noted that courts in other states had also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at home come within the private full-time day school exemption . . .” Therefore, your contention that the family in question ought to have properly registered their homeschool as a private school would not seem to be a legal possibility in California — although the above comments lead me to understand that the loophole of an umbrella organization has been utilized for years.
And I do not disagree that there are families out there who use homeschooling as a cover for laziness, abuse, or other issues. According to the court reports you reference, that is clearly the case in the present situation, and I deplore the wrong behavior of the parents in question.
My concern is that, whatever the particulars in this case, and to whomever the court decision directly applies, legal precedent is being set — although given the cases the present decision references, it was set some years ago, but is now being brought to the forefront. A flaw in the Turner court’s decision, in my opinion, is that the court ruled that California’s compulsory education laws are not unconstitutional because they allow a parent an alternative to the public schools. By limiting the alternative to either a private school or home tutoring by a credentialed teacher, however, they place an undue burden upon families who a) object to public school education and b) do not have the resources to participate in a state-approved alternative. For instance, while a family in, say, northern California might have the resources for the parents to homeschool their own children, they might not have a) an acceptable private school within driving distance, b) the resources for one of the parents to become state-certified (either in the time or money that would take), or c) the resources to hire a certified private tutor.
Chuck, I know you think you’ve provided some “new” info here, but alas, you haven’t.
“Additionally, the Turner [a case used to provide legal precedent for the present case] court rejected, and noted that courts in other states had also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at home come within the private full-time day school exemption . . .” - All references to the Turner case are indicative of families, like the Longs, who did not follow the educational code (In the Turner case, they didn’t have the option of filing an R4 affidavit, something todays parents do have). To make the Turner ruling, the court cites a New Hampshire court ruling that basically says parents can’t homeschool - but in fact, today, many children are being legally homeschooled in New Hampshire (I know a few).
“Moreover, even if being taught at a parent’s home could be construed as
attendance at a private day school, the parents in Turner had not demonstrated that their
home already qualified as a private school under the requirements of the Education
Code” Again, specific to the Turner case, and setting the precedent that other families can be “construed” by filing an R4 again, an option not available to the Turners.
The wording in the ruling affects ONLY those families using an “umbrella school”, which is not one of the alternatives laid out in the educational code. It does not affect the vast majority of families (including your example family in N. CA.). Those families have legally filed and had their homes declared a private school - that’s what an R4 affidavit does - it makes your home a private school. Private schools in California are not required to hire California state licensed staff, and nothing in the Long ruling changes that. Homeschooling is still not mentioned in California educational code, private schools in the home are still acceptable, and so, again, nothing has changed in California law. Those who used the umbrella schools were/are doing it without the protection of the law. If in fact, this ruling absolutely states, or sets a precedent that all students must be taught by a certified teacher, then it would also affect the hundreds of thousands of traditionally private schooled children. This is a very weak ruling, and not one capable of going the distance in Supreme court. The panic is unfounded. What people don’t understand is that the Judge is doing homeschoolers a favor by forcing legislative change that will include legal homeschooling options. A judge has to rule according to the laws in place. Homeschooling simply isn’t a legal option in California. Instead of blaming the judge, blame the HSLDA and the state Homeschooling associations for dragging their feet and refusing to lobby for absolute protections.
Doc — I’m a lawyer, I understand full well the implications of the ruling in the Long case. I happen to disagree with you that the potential impact is as limited in scope as you believe it will be. Why are you so hostile to that perspective?
Also, do you or do you not agree that parents should be free to make whatever academic choices fit their family unless there is some evidence that the academic choice is educationally insufficient? Because the Long case conflates the two issues badly; that they were using an umbrella enrollment was illegal on its face, but it didn’t cause nor enhance the abuse, if they were doing the legal fiction of the “our house is a private school” their kids would have been in equal peril. But the wording of the decision has suggested that the illegal educational choice was itself a part of the abuse. And since appeals court rulings do form legal precedent, that is the part that is worrying. Now there is precedent for suggesting a much more grave crime against any parent using an umbrella scheme- regardless of other abuse, regardless of academic success - than could’ve been suggested before. Maybe that doesn’t worry you, but as an attorney I’m consistently concerned by overbroad appellate rulings, because they become a part of the nexus of bad law.
Also, do you or do you not agree that parents should be free to make whatever academic choices fit their family unless there is some evidence that the academic choice is educationally insufficient?
*********
So if the parents want their child to have the benefits of the curriculum and guidance of an umbrella school, what’s to stop them?
They could file their own R4, establish that their home is the private school their child is enrolled in, and hire the services of the umbrella school. Also. In addition. Like they would hire any other outside instructor.
If you have to handle the paperwork in a slightly different way it doesn’t necessarily mean anyone’s “academic choices” have been limited.
Nance
What I find most damaging to home education and how we’ll be treated by the public now, is this whole self-absorbed focus on the nuances of homeschool paperwork and what about MY rights — rather than directing our citizen and parental concern where it belongs, on the horrific real abuse these poor children suffered despite all efforts to help them over 20 years, by “public” employees including lawyers and judges, using all sorts of legal arguments and procedures and frames and devices.
I think we are in trouble now, that this has hurt us. But not because of the appellate ruling — because of our own shallowness, Chicken Littleness, hyper-organized religious paranoia, generalized lack of critical thinking skills and/or the willingness to use them, not to mention education policy sophistication.
I was part of writing this at NHEN, and I WISH we could get back to this approach:
“Thoughts on Protecting Children in Homeschooling Families”
[…] gave her final word on the matter, and it wasn’t pretty. But then that’s what I love about Doc, she doesn’t sugar […]
“If after reading those court documents, you’re still too stupid to understand the possible implications to your own situation, please, put your children in public school. You’re not qualified to teach them.”
I love you for this.
Really, I do.
i so do not agree with you… there are people who are qualified to teach their children. if you dont agree then dont homeschool your children but stay out of other peoples lives and let them teach their kids how they think they will best succeed in life.
Kelly, I have no idea whom you’re addressing, but this is a homeschooling blog.
[…] a hat tip to Doc who also has good information on this […]