johnnymk

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20080310a.html

(CNSNews.com) - A ruling by a California appeals court that parents "do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children" drew harsh criticism from religious conservatives on Friday, one of whom said the decision makes tens of thousands of parents into criminals - "the equivalent to drug dealers or pick-pockets."

"The court is guilty of an imperious assault on the rights of parents," James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, said in a press release responding to a three-judge panel from the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which ruled on Feb. 28 that parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children.

"How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents as criminals - the equivalent to drug dealers or pick-pockets - because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?" Dobson asked.

At the center of the case is a Southern California couple, Phillip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who home-schooled their children through a program at the Sunland Christian School in Sylmar. The family came to the attention of Los Angeles County social workers when one of the children claimed the father was physically abusive.

The workers then learned that all eight children in the family were home-schooled, and an attorney representing the two youngest children asked the Juvenile Dependency Court to order that they be enrolled in public or private school to protect their well-being.

Parents who fail to comply with school enrollment laws "may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey, whose decision was joined by the other two members of the panel.

But the case before the judges "involved one couple - the ruling should have been confined to that one couple, not used to punish an entire class of people, the vast majority of them religious conservatives," Dobson said.

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which describes itself as "a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties."

"It not only attacks traditional home-schooling, but also calls into question home- schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools," Dacus noted in a press release Friday.

If the Feb. 28 decision is not reversed, "the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions" if they continue to live in California, he added.

Well-meaning but gullible parents

Until now, the state allowed home schooling if parents filed paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools, hired a credentialed tutor or enrolled their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching him or her at home. Enforcement was left up to local school districts with little oversight.

To receive a five-year preliminary teaching credential in California, one must have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university and pass a number of examinations.

Such requirements are supported by a number of unions - including the California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teacher's union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, a member of the CTA board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

Another supporter of certification for home school teachers is the National Education Association (NEA). Calls seeking a response from the NEA were not returned by press time, but the organization has posted on its Web site an article written by Dave Arnold from the group's Illinois chapter entitled, "Home Schools Run by Well-Meaning Amateurs."

"There's nothing like having the right person with the right experience, skills and tools to accomplish a specific task," Arnold wrote. "Whether it is window-washing, bricklaying or designing a space station, certain jobs are best left to the pros. Formal education is one of those jobs."

In his opinion, many home schools are run by "well-meaning but gullible parents," including those who educate their children according to their "religious convictions" and see home-schooling as the best way to combat our nation's "ungodly" public schools, Arnold wrote.

Those parents "would be wise to help their children and themselves by leaving the responsibility of teaching math, science, art, writing, history, geography and other subjects to those who are knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible," Arnold added.

Nevertheless, Dobson noted that he views the court's decision "an all-out assault on the family, and it must be met with a concerted effort to defend parents and their children."

"We will team with key allies and use every means at our disposal to make sure that not just every Californian, but every American, is aware of this miscarriage of justice," Dobson said. "And we're hopeful that, in the end, common sense and legal sanity will prevail."

That battle may not be far off, since Phillip Long - the father in the original case - has already vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

"I have sincerely held religious beliefs," he told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me to do."

Jeffbx

Ooh, boy - this is going to be a big fight.

Both sides certainly have a good argument, but the law is on California's side. I wonder how it works for situations like this - where there's a law in place that has never been strictly enforced.

zippyjuan

There is also the question of the rights of a child to receive an education from individuals qualified to teach them. The state is asking that parents who would like to home school their children demonstrate their ability to do so- holding them to the same standards of all teachers.

__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz

Airencracken

Not a bad idea at all.

__________________
"I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

InfiniteNothing

I think most homeschooling parents will be glad to take an inexpensive test to prove they are fit to educate their kids. I just think the law is a bit weak in that there needs to be a process and a grace period for parents to take the test.

__________________
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

cheapie

while i don't think it's a terrible idea, i would wager a large amount of money that the vast majority of kids coming out of home-schools are far better off than those that aren't. i think enacting legislation like this is ridiculous when the literacy rates among kids graduating from public schools are so pathetic.

__________________
70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

Markel

When I heard about this, I had to wonder what would happen if the public schools were held to the same scrutiny: would public schooling end up being outlawed?

__________________
stay low... keep moving...

Napoleon54

Whether kids are better off in large schools or home schools is irrelevant. The point should be that parents have the right to decide how their children are to learn. Individuals do not exist at the mercy of society.

__________________
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

gwilks98

I say flip the testing around. Require all home-schooled kids to pass standardized tests once a year or semester and score what's considered to be a passing grade at a public school, and that will prove the parents are providing at least as good of an education.

Problem solved.

__________________
"I know the pieces fit, cause I watched them fall away."

"Cold silence has
A tendancy to
Atrophy any
Sense of compassion."

MJK

Jeffbx

Not a bad idea - way cheaper & easier than making the parents get certified & renewed every 5 years. Plus who's to say that even if a parent is certified that they'll be any good at getting their kids to learn? I can remember a couple of teachers I've had who had no business teaching (and they didn't last long in the school). But you can't let a parent go for poor performance...

Mommypooh

I know here there has to be evaluation done on the child yearly if they are homeschooled. The parents can chose to have the child take standardized tests for the grade they should be in, you can keep a portfolio of all the years work and then have a certified teacher look it over and make sure they are on track with what they should know. I think there is one other option but I can't remember what it is. I think the kids should be evaluated to make sure they are keeping up. The fun of homeschooling is learnig together, discovering something new. You do have to have a basic grasp but after that it is going out and getting books going to museums, going to the local science center, I think homeschooling offers more in the fact that it teaches a child that learning is a life long goal and can be done anywhere. But that is my thought on this.

I think parents need to decide what is best for their own child but I do agree with accountability and just testing a parent will not prove the child is learning anything.

__________________
Married to my High School sweetheart and Best Friend BigJon
Mommy to Gabby (03/03), Cameron (01/05), and Magnus (09/07)

InfiniteNothing

At the same time just testing the child might not be apropriate for all children. What if you just have a dumb kid

molecularfire

If the kid is just dumb then he/she might need more intensive education (or a teaching method different than what the parents are providing).

I disagree with this. Yeah, parents should be able to teach their kids at home if they want but
1) I don't think the constitution mentioned homeschooling so yeah, it isn't a protected right for parents to home-school their children.
2) There are things that children need to learn to be able to succeed in our society and IMO they should be given every opportunity to do so. In my job, the mantra that we follow is that we do what is best for the children. If I feel that the parents are getting in the way of doing what is best for the child, I have an obligation to report them to child protective services if I don't feel that I can deal with it between me and them. As a society, we have to support these children when they grow up and are not able to function in society so yeah, I do believe that we have a certain amount of say in demanding that they are taught well enough to be able to at least function in society (i.e. be able to read, and have enough technical skills to hold down a basic job). Yeah, the school system has done a miserable job in this but that doesn't mean that it's a wise thing to use that as rationalization allowing parents to do a miserable job. We need to fix the school system's failure, not allow other people to also fail.

__________________
Disclaimer - The above opinion should not be taken as medical advise. My only advise is to talk to your doctor. If you are stupid enough to take anything I say seriously, you have nobody to blame for your cranio-anal inversion but your stupid self.

I may not be smart enough to do everything but I am dumb enough to try anything. - Beastboy.

Napoleon54

That's absolutely, 100%, no-holds-bared, the wrong interpretation of the Constitution. And that's exactly why the Bill of Rights may have been a dumb idea... it leads to the implication that anything not specifically enumerated is fair game for government take-over. NOT TRUE. The Constitution is not a list of rights allowed to the people. Rather, it is a limited list of powers granted to the government. Amendments 9 and 10 were specifically intended to prevent your assumptions. According to your implications, in the absense of a Constitution people don't have any rights whatsoever! Ludicrous!


That's another very dangerous assumption. Individuals do not exist for the benefit society. Individuals do not owe society anything, including the right to teach their children as they see fit. Parenthood and all the responsibilities that go along with it is among the most inalienable freedoms belonging to the individual. What you suggest, the idea that the government knows what's best and that children exist for the benefit of society, ultimately leads to the belief that children would be best raised on large state-run farms, completely removed from their parents, where they could be wantonly indoctrinated with whatever's best for society/ the goverment... might as well say good bye to individuality. That idea is straight from Aldous Huxley via his book Brave New World. We do not want to go down that road.

Napoleon54

MF please belive me that I know you're coming from a position of compassion and geniune good will. I'm that way too... I wish every child had the absolute best opportunity to be as much as they can be and to function as a coherent part of society. But at the same time I staunchly believe that going too far in that direction is a grave mistake. There's very real value in individualism, and that only comes from different experiences. Do I necessarily think children should suffer for the sake of society? Of course not. But homogenizing children to the point where there's no differences, where parents have zero role in shaping the lives of their children, is too far. Chances are that any parent who wants to homeschool their children cares very deeply for them. At the least, why would an irresponsible or selfish parent chose to pass up free childcare? Frankly, I can't understand why this is an issue at all. If some parents are willing to undertake the extraordinary burden of educating their children at home, why is that a problem? That ultimately means a lower teacher:student ratio for everyone else. All these people are asking for is to be left alone. Why does that have to be so difficult??

InfiniteNothing

Simple: rights of the child. Otherwise you have Mormons married to kids who just "want to be left alone". The truth is, you don't have a free pass to raise your kids as you want and sometimes society does set limitations. It's not unreasonable take away the right to avoid taking a test in exchange for the child's right to have a certified educator.

Napoleon54

Please don't ignore the rest of what I said.

Besides... education is NOT a human right. Nor is health care, for that matter. Individuals certainly have the right to pursue those things, but nobody is automatically entitled to either. You can't just label everything desireable as a right and then expect government to provide it. What's next, the right to cable TV? The right to own a car or a home? People have the right to pursue those things, but they are not entitled to them. Cable TV is not a right. The right to free speech does not mean that government has to provide you with a newspaper to write in. It only means they can't prevent you from doing that yourself.

InfiniteNothing

Well, I disagree that education isn't a human right.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=144

Cheesypuff

if i may quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as put out by the UN (treaties take precedence in the constitution..any treaty the US enters into is the supreme law of the land Article VI, Clause 2, constitution)

Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the UN for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


with all that said...education IS a human right, and even with the 3rd there, even though it is the parents right to choose the kind of education they shall be given, it is the responsibility of the state the child gets adequate education.


oh...and article 25 talks about medical care as a basic human right...but we won't go into that since it's not part of the topic.

__________________
Life is like toilet paper, long and useful!
The stars at night, are big and bright *clap 4x* deep in the heart of TEXAS!

WhiskeyPapa

I don't know about California, but that's pretty much how it works in most states. Here in Minnesota, all home school students under the age of 16 must demonstrate academic performance adequate for their grade level on a state-recognized standardized test.

__________________

Hopper1

/Tangent
It isn't a treaty.
Also article VI is explained at The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.
Constitution, then federal laws and treaties, over state laws in that order. http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...on.htm/tangent

As for homeschooling as long as the children can pass state competency tests for the grade they should be in I don't see a problem.

__________________
To alcohol! the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

-Homer Simpson
Flickr

Napoleon54

That is the most BS thing I've ever heard of. Congratulations folks, you exist for the benefit of society... whether you like it or not.

Cheesypuff

yes....i do think we exist for the benefit of society. why do we do our jobs? sure it's to survive, but i also think it's to give back to our communities which SHOULD be our goal. helping others. but hey...call me old fashioned...

Education is a way to help mold us into a productive member of society.

Cheesypuff

why was that tangent? i just proved to you that it is a basic human right... nothing tangent about that.

Hopper1

That was my tangent, the UHRD isn't a treaty. I never agreed or disagreed that education is a right.

InfiniteNothing

How do you figure. Couldn't you theoretically get an education and do nothing with it. Furthermore couldn't you get an education but use it to be a detriment to society.

molecularfire

Sorry, got a little busy with life. Anyways, back to this... The constitution actually states that the powers not specifically granted the govt. in the constitution is reserved for the state or the individual. I think that education should be a power of the state. That's why while I disagree with certain states refusing to teach evolution, I do support their decision to make that choice, whether I agree with it or not.

This is one of the main problems that I have with people in today's world... this concept that we should be able to do whatever we want and any problems that we have should be fixed by the safetynet of soceity. The selfishness of it all is beyond me. Society is the collaboration of efforts from each individual member and as a member of society we are obligated to contribute our share. The reason for the existance of society is to get together and accomplish things that we as individuals can't do separately. The purpose of society isn't to let leeches do whatever they want at the cost of others (whether they can afford it or not). As we demand that society protect us from more and more problems we are making them come into our lives more and yet when they do all of a sudden it's an issue of our freedoms. You can't have it both ways. Is there a risk that selfish people can abuse that power, yep. That's what it is meant to be vigilant for attacks on freedom. Being vigilant for attacks on freedom doesn't mean to sacrifice the future of our children due to fear from a piece of fiction.

What I want parents who want to homeschool to do isn't controversial. I'm not saying that we should brainwash them into being homogenous automatons. We should demand that they show us that they can do the same things that we should demand the school system does (and for the record, IMO the school system has also failed our kids in this) which is to teach the children enough for them to have a fighting chance in this world. We have children who are growing up illiterate and spending their lives having trouble finding good work while we have highly skilled and good jobs go unfilled and/or filled with people from other countries we import to do these jobs because we haven't taught our own kids enough to be able to do these jobs. We do this and wonder why there are high unemployment rates, why the crime rate is high, why there is a large gap in the classes... the answer to poverty isn't to give them money, it's to give them the tools and the desire to get better.