Article on CA court ordering homeschooled kids back into ps.

[Ellie]

Ellie, does this article alarm you at all? I have not had enough time to sit and read it thoroughly. I know your CA history and it was a relief to read what you wrote here. I am not a person given to being fearful about our established homeschool (R-4), but does this concern you?

 

Thanks for your time.

 

I haven't decided yet.:( It alarms me that the family that finally gets to court appears to be so ignorant of the law, and that they do not have good representation. It alarms me that they were enrolled with Sunland (because of what I know about history with that group). It could be HSLDA's worse nightmare. Ok, yes, I guess I am alarmed:(

 

California's private school law has worked for homeschoolers for a looooong time. But I have to repeat myself by saying that *anyone* who homeschools should be a member of HSLDA. Regardless of what one thinks about HSLDA's "politics" or anything else, those folks know the law; if the parents in question had been members, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If you continue to file an R-4, you should make the annual HSLDA membership fee part of your budget.

[Miss Peregrine]

Maybe I am missing something??

 

This quote

The parents in this case assert that when the mother gives the children

educational instruction at home, the parents are acting within the law because mother

operates through Sunland Christian School where the children are “enrolled.â€

However, the parents have not demonstrated that mother has a teaching credential such

that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor. It is

clear that the education of the children at their home, whatever the quality of that education, does not qualify for the private full-time day school or credentialed tutor

exemptions from compulsory education in a public full-time day school.

 

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

 

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

[Tammyla]

I haven't decided yet.:( It alarms me that the family that finally gets to court appears to be so ignorant of the law, and that they do not have good representation. It alarms me that they were enrolled with Sunland (because of what I know about history with that group). It could be HSLDA's worse nightmare. Ok, yes, I guess I am alarmed:(

 

California's private school law has worked for homeschoolers for a looooong time. But I have to repeat myself by saying that *anyone* who homeschools should be a member of HSLDA. Regardless of what one thinks about HSLDA's "politics" or anything else, those folks know the law; if the parents in question had been members, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If you continue to file an R-4, you should make the annual HSLDA membership fee part of your budget.

 

 

We aren't eligible here for HSLDA membership because we are part of a home school assistance program. :(

 

I'd call, e-mail and contact my local and state reps if I lived in California.

[Daisy]

I didn't realize this was still at the top. I started a new thread about HSLDA's Response this morning. Here it is...

 

We received a copy of the decision on Friday and our legal staff has been analyzing the decision and looking at the background and facts of the case. An analysis of the decision is being drafted and will be emailed to all our California members.

 

We believe the court erred in its decision and it is our belief that homeschooling is still legal in California via the private school exemption.

 

You should be receiving our litigators’ analysis sometime today.

 

Pat Ramirez

Legal Assistant for CA

Attorney Michael Smith

[anewday]

Do you use HSLDA? What do you think of this? I am going to check their website and see if they have anything on this. I don't like the sound of it.

 

Yes. Years ago our friends who homeschooled strongly encouraged us to use HSLDA when we had also hoped to hs someday. She was never one to believe that even with the most friendly laws and increasing numbers of hsers that we would ever be "safe".

 

I think that the future looks a lot less "promising" for homeschooling than it did just a few years ago. It will ultimately come down to the issue of parental rights which are being eroded at an alarming rate.

 

UGH.

[Melinda in VT]

Maybe I am missing something??

 

This quote

 

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

 

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

 

In footnote 4, on page 12, the ruling states: "In support of the parents’ home schooling, Terry Neven, Sunland Christian

School’s administrator, submitted a letter in which he stated the school is a private

school and the two younger children are enrolled there. The letter fails to mention that

the children do not actually receive education instruction at the school." [emphasis in the original]

 

On page 14, it also refers to "the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay

home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

 

Continuing on page 14, "Although Mr. Neven reported to the Lynwood Unified School District that he

makes visits to the parents’ home about four times a year, and although some of the

children in the family reported to the Department of Children and Family Services

social worker that they were given tests at the end of some school years and they took

the tests at the Sunland Christian School, the fact remains that the children are taught at

home by a non-credentialed person."

 

So, I think the ruling does potentially call into question the legality of homeschooling even if you file an R-4.

 

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not homeschooling, not in CA--although my sister fits those last two.

[Miss Peregrine]

Thank you, Melinda!!

 

That makes sense now.:)

[Ellie]

We aren't eligible here for HSLDA membership because we are part of a home school assistance program. :(

 

I don't know what a "home school assistance program" is.:confused:

[Daisy]

I don't know the term "homeschool assistance program" either?? The only way you are prevented from joining HSLDA is if you go through a public school charter. Independent Study Programs can and are encouraged to join HSLDA.

[Ellie]

Maybe I am missing something??

 

This quote

 

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

 

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

 

Well, here's the thing: What the law says is that children must be enrolled in a public school or a private school, or tutored full time by a credentialed teacher. It doesn't say that children must be taught by a certified teacher, if you see the difference here. The court seems to be saying that it is not even legal for parents to file their own affidavits if they are not credentialed/certified teachers (which is Terry Neven's position, not that he is anyone special).

[Ellie]

For those living in CA, maybe you should all contact your congressman and become squeaky wheels about closing the loopholes.

 

Oh, no--we *like* those loopholes. It's the loopholes that give us such freedom--file an affidavit annually and call it a day. And if the state legislature gets involved, boy howdy, you can bet the closing of the loopholes will become chains around hsers' necks.:eek:

[Kate CA]

I was unclear from reading the court ruling if the kids want to go to public school or if their attorneys (court appointed?) were acting in what they thought was the best interest of the children in spite of what the children wanted.

 

I found the other court case on the family and it is *not* good. We do not want this family representing all of CA homeschooling. I do feel for those children--their family situation sounds *very* distressing.

[sdWTMer]

Oh, no--we *like* those loopholes. It's the loopholes that give us such freedom--file an affidavit annually and call it a day. And if the state legislature gets involved, boy howdy, you can bet the closing of the loopholes will become chains around hsers' necks.:eek:

 

I agree with you Ellie. Just leave well enough alone. I guess not now though, eh?

 

What I'm curious about is our state is in such debt, would they target homeschoolers to try to get the money for our children should they be forced to go to a public school? :confused:

[anewday]

I found the other court case on the family and it is *not* good. We do not want this family representing all of CA homeschooling. I do feel for those children--their family situation sounds *very* distressing.

 

And sadly:mad: it's these very rare cases that are going to be held up as reasons WHY hsing should be illegal. :(

[sdWTMer]

Kate, could you link to that as well?

 

Tnx

[Karenciavo]

And sadly:mad: it's these very rare cases that are going to be held up as reasons WHY hsing should be illegal. :(

 

That is the case in NJ, although, it hasn't happened yet. Homeschooling parent abuses child = homeschooling should be under oversight of state or worse.

[Kate CA]

Kate, could you link to that as well?

 

Tnx

 

Yes. http://tinyurl.com/2fet38 it is very lengthy reading and really quite disturbing.

[Daisy]

That file reads like a bad movie. Sigh, what a mess. And as saddened as I am about that family's issues and the possible mistreatment of those kids, I'm more upset about how this is going to impact the thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers in this state.

[Daisy]

Just received from HSLDA

 

California: Unfortunate Court Decision in California

 

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

 

The Second Appellate District in Los Angles County handed down a

decision on February 28 involving a non-member homeschool family that

has caused much concern among California homeschoolers.

 

Home School Legal Defense Association is looking at the background of

the case to determine the implications of this particular decision by

the Second Appellate District for the homeschool community in

California.

 

We do want to make one point clear, however. Nothing has changed in

California regarding your homeschool. HSLDA maintains that the advice

we give homeschool families is accurate and that filing a private

school affidavit, or enrollment in a private school independent study

program (I.S.P) is a valid option under the law in California.

 

We will be examining this situation and providing a detailed analysis

of this court decision in the near future.

 

To read the court opinion visit:

http://www.hslda.org/elink.asp?id=4804 .

 

Sincerely,

 

J. Michael Smith

HSLDA President

[Kate CA]

That file reads like a bad movie. Sigh, what a mess. And as saddened as I am about that family's issues and the possible mistreatment of those kids, I'm more upset about how this is going to impact the thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers in this state.

 

Yes, I agree, on both of your comments.

[Mama Bear]

I do have to say that reading the actual reading is very upsetting--it seems to dismiss the very foundation of the right to homeschool (and, actually, to use any non-public schools). I'm wondering where this is going to go?

 

 

I agree, Kay. I don't understand the hoops CA requires, esp in light of many other states' very open requirements. Of course, then there's PA and etc. ;)

 

I don't know, I guess. It's just sort of yanked me back to when my folks were hsing me and my brothers and it would have been completely illegal except that my dad kept his teaching cert. up to date. It reminds me of the ever so slight feel of paranoia to certain outings.... And we weren't insurrectionists or anything. :D

 

Also, while I totally get that there are people who need the kind of supervision this ruling implies is necessary, it bothers me that the conversation to follow this will be full of red herrings and not address the fundamental constitutional right of parents to make choices for their children. Lets face it: the vast majority of parents who pull their kids out to teach at home are letting themselves in for no end of hard work. Who does this? People who are interested in subverting their children's opportunities? Hardly.

 

Maybe it'll all work out or maybe CA homeschoolers need to rise up and make themselves heard. The implied challenge to freedoms makes me twitchy.

 

"...the juvenile court has authority to limit a parent’s control over a dependent child, including a parent’s right to make educational decisions for a child..."

 

:eek:

[Mama Bear]

Unfortunately, my immediate concern about all of this is that it opens up an avenue for harassment for those of us who have disgruntled family members willing to cause trouble.

 

If the law that has been protecting homeschoolers in this state for (did someday say 20+ years?) is no longer quite as rock solid as it was... how long before some anti-homeschooling crazed relative decides to push their luck and make another example out of some unfortunate family.

 

All in the "best interests" of the children, of course. :mad:

 

I have some ideas ready to spring into action if needed. It's just exceedingly irritating having the possibility of trouble hanging over one's head.

 

(I hesitated to post because my board name is searchable on the internet, and a lot of what I post shows up on google. I don't think my comments could make anything worse, though...)

 

 

...to all the above. Should such a thing happen, I hope plenty of your and others' ideas come out and work well.

 

Yuck.

[Mama Bear]

Yes. http://tinyurl.com/2fet38 it is very lengthy reading and really quite disturbing.

 

I had to stop reading the recounting of the details. It is horrifying to me that such a swamp of a family system leads with a banner of "homeschooling." May God have mercy on those children.

[Kate CA]

I had to stop reading the recounting of the details. It is horrifying to me that such a swamp of a family system leads with a banner of "homeschooling." May God have mercy on those children.

 

I know. I couldn't read it all either. It is *so* disturbing.

[kalanamak]

Unfortunately, my immediate concern about all of this is that it opens up an avenue for harassment for those of us who have disgruntled family members willing to cause trouble.

 

 

 

Keep in mind this family repeatedly came to the attention of the courts over years and years. I suspect that the court, in the attempt to work with this father with something like paranoid personality disorder, is dragging in every possible way of getting around him.

 

No one picked out homeschooling as the issue and started going after him. The hundreds of hours of visits and interviews and court hearing, etc cannot and are not going to be rained down on any family who has a disgruntled auntie who calls the local police in concern. The state would go bankrupt.

 

If the state just removed them, some would raise an outcry. If dirt came out later (child punished with blows, went to bed with ruptured spleen and died...this happened with the ex of someone I know), some would raise an outcry. Pity the poor state who has to grasp at legal straws to try and bring these kids into a setting (school) where someone can, as we say in the medical world, "eyeball them" for bruises or disturbing behavior. I deal with paranoid people, and it is hard to put in writing the sixth sense you have that you are dealing with simmering rage. It is hard enough in MD notes, and I can't imagine trying to do this in legal writing. The passive voice is "professional", but it can't convey the message that "everyone who comes in contact with this jerk worries he's going to start clubbing them with the nearest weapon the moment he senses he isn't getting his way".

 

I hope this makes sense, I'm out the door to work and don't have time to edit.

[Ellie]

I agree, Kay. I don't understand the hoops CA requires, esp in light of many other states' very open requirements. Of course, then there's PA and etc. ;)

 

<snip>

 

Maybe it'll all work out or maybe CA homeschoolers need to rise up and make themselves heard. The implied challenge to freedoms makes me twitchy.

 

I understand what you mean, but I think it's important to remember what HSLDA has said: The law in California has not changed. That one court has made this ruling does not mean that all California homeschoolers are in danger.

 

The private school law doesn't really require hoops: a private school files an affidavit each year notifying the state that there is a private school at this address, with X students in X grades, # of teachers...just basic information about the school. That's it. (There are some minor recordkeeping requirements, but as NO ONE ever gets to see them, they're almost irrelevant.)

 

Since before I started hsing in 1982, homeschoolers were filing their own affidavits with their 1 or 2 or whatever children on the affidavits, there being no requirement for how many children must be enrolled. Back in the early 80s, some of the Christian pioneers were a little paranoid, and so they started getting several families together and filing one affidavit for all of them, so that instead of a bunch of private schools that were clearly homeschoolers, there would be one larger school, making each family more anonymous. There are many such schools now (I owned one myself for 16 years, not because I was paranoid, lol, but because I figured if people were going to enroll in such a school, they might as well enroll in mine; you might suspect that mine was pretty casual and relaxed as far as any requirements:D).

 

All this to say that there really aren't any hoops: Enroll your children in a private school owned by someone else who files an affidavit, or establish your own private school. That law has not changed, and I think that this court's ruling can be easily challenged by any other homeschooling family in the future...at least, if that family has decent legal representation. Let's keep our fingers crossed on that!

 

As far as homeschoolers making themselves heard, I'm not sure homeschoolers should do anything at this point. The legislature is not considering changing the law; it's just a realy lousy court case with a family that is NOT representative of homeschoolers in general.

[Mekanamom]

Oh I know the family in question has horrible problems (understatement), and they didn't end up in the court system because of homeschooling.

 

I did read some of that other court document that was linked here, and it was sickening. I think the children in that situation do need some way to get out.

 

But... it also sounds to me (and I'm not a lawyer or anything) like the wording in the judgment concerning just the homeschooling could make it easier for disgruntled relatives to pounce on homeschoolers if they were motivated to make trouble. I'll PM you.

[Storm Bay]

The biggest problem is that 2 issues are being addressed by the court when the true problem is the allegations of physical abuse. As many of us know, children who are in ps who are abused are often missed by the teachers, but this type of case gives rise to the profligation of misinformation and fear-mongering. This is not a new fight, but certainly this court is trying to bring it to a new level. Why would the schooling issue be made public and not the abuse allegations? I know that this is in part due to the s*x abuse by that family friend (or was it a relative?) Honestly, if all these allegations in the second court publication (not to be made public, right?) are correct, this family has serious problems. But the problems they have do not reflect the majority of homeschoolers any more than those type of problems reflect the majority of families whose kids go to ps, private schools, etc.

 

Honestly, keeping freedoms and choices open seems to be a continual battle, and not just in the area of edcuation. But homeschooling is an area close to our hearts and lives.

[sdWTMer]

Here here!

[anewday]

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803030.asp

 

Follow Up—Bad Decision by Second Appellate District of California

As many of you know, the Second Appellate District Court of Los Angeles handed down a very bad decision regarding a case involving a homeschool family.

Home School Legal Defense Association was not involved with this case, and the family are not members, which is why we only heard about this case when the opinion was released on February 28, 2008.

Since legal cases have many facets, and we are starting from scratch, it takes time to investigate and fully absorb all the facts which led up to a particular decision. We are in the middle of that process, but because of the interest in this case we want to give you as much information as we can regarding the implications for California.

The opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California. HSLDA strongly disputes this interpretation of California law. We believe that the court made a mistake when it relied on two decisions reached in the 1950s in order to show that homeschooling is not a legal option.

If the opinion is followed, then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned, because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children.

California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home.

HSLDA stands ready to provide assistance in appealing this decision in order to show the court that it made a mistake. It should have ruled that homeschooling is a fundamental right and that parents have a legal option to homeschool in California.

 

 

This is going to be big. We need to be in prayer!!

[mcconnellboys]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

 

Regena

[Kate CA]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

 

Regena

 

There are no specific statutes in CA that address homeschooling. That word does not exist within the law here. This is a much bigger deal than anything that has ever happened and could be very serious.

 

The only thing that makes me feel better is what was established in court in 1986:

 

"In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statue is void because of its unconstitutional vagueness and upheld the right of home schools to operate as private schools. People v. Darrah, No. 853104 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986); People v. Black, No. 853105 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986)." (http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/California.pdf)

 

So because this is new, and the people were not represented by (what I think are) competent lawyers, this has opened the door for a lot of potential issues for CA homeschoolers.

[Janet in WA]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

 

Regena

Can you quote (or provide links to) the revised statutes and/or laws that now specifically include homeschooling?

 

The California Department of Education has policies in place that allow the laws (quoted by the court) to be applied to homeschoolers. But these policies don't constitute law. The court was relying on law, not the policies of the CDE.

[Mekanamom]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

 

Regena

 

California doesn't technically allow "homeschooling" per se. All independent homeschoolers are protected by the private school laws. We file our affidavits stating we are very small private schools every year. So when you get right down to it... homeschooling is not (and hasn't been) a legal option in California. We've been doing just fine as small private schools, though.

 

The wording in the judgment appears to put that in jeopardy, however. (Not to mention Independent Study Programs & some Charter Schools.)

 

Realistically... it would be a nightmare in this state to try and force all "homeschoolers" into the public schools. Many of the decent private schools have long waiting lists, and there aren't enough resources for the children currently enrolled in the public schools!

 

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.

[Kate CA]

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.

 

Gosh do I know what you mean. Sigh.

[Janet in WA]

There are no specific statutes in CA that address homeschooling. That word does not exist within the law here. This is a much bigger deal than anything that has ever happened and could be very serious.

 

The only thing that makes me feel better is what was established in court in 1986:

 

"In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statue is void because of its unconstitutional vagueness and upheld the right of home schools to operate as private schools. People v. Darrah, No. 853104 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986); People v. Black, No. 853105 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986)." (http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/California.pdf)

 

So because this is new, and the people were not represented by (what I think are) competent lawyers, this has opened the door for a lot of potential issues for CA homeschoolers.

I think this is serious, but more in the sense that CA homeschoolers need to get serious about getting some laws in place that specifically protect homeschooling.

[Janet in WA]

Realistically... it would be a nightmare in this state to try and force all "homeschoolers" into the public schools. Many of the decent private schools have long waiting lists, and there aren't enough resources for the children currently enrolled in the public schools!

 

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.

The problem, as I see it, is for individual homeschooling families who may find their right to homeschool challenged. This ruling won't help them. But giving some teeth to the law to specifically include homeschoolers would.

[Kate CA]

I think this is serious, but more in the sense that CA homeschoolers need to get serious about getting some laws in place that specifically protect homeschooling.

 

I don't agree, Janet. That opens up homeschoolers to the state's regulations if we do that. I don't want that at all. At this point it *is* legal for our family to establish ourselves as a private school and fall under the private school laws. There is no reason why we should not continue in this vein. We *are* private schools--for our family. It has been legal in this manner for 20+ years.

[Janet in WA]

 

I don't agree, Janet. That opens up homeschoolers to the state's regulations if we do that. I don't want that at all. At this point it *is* legal for our family to establish ourselves as a private school and fall under the private school laws. There is no reason why we should not continue in this vein. We *are* private schools--for our family. It has been legal in this manner for 20+ years.

And I don't agree with you. :) Texas has NO regulation of homeschoolers at all -- it merely includes wording in the law that designates homeschools as private schools. Period. That's what CA needs. A court in TX could not do what the court in CA did because the law wouldn't allow it.

[Mekanamom]

The problem, as I see it, is for individual homeschooling families who may find their right to homeschool challenged. This ruling won't help them. But giving some teeth to the law to specifically include homeschoolers would.

 

Yes, I see the exact same problem. Absolutely. :(

 

Edited to add: I'm not savvy enough to comment with much weight either way on the yeas or nays of trying to introduce new legislation specifically about homeschooling. I don't think it's needed yet. But I surely do hope that any individual family who might be challenged has good legal support. (I do make a yearly donation to one of the state's homeschooling associations along with my membership fee. I hope some of it found it's way into the legal fund.)

[Ellie]

And I don't agree with you. :) Texas has NO regulation of homeschoolers at all -- it merely includes wording in the law that designates homeschools as private schools. Period. That's what CA needs. A court in TX could not do what the court in CA did because the law wouldn't allow it.

 

Janet, almost ever since I started hsing in California in 1982, the state leaders, among them J. Michael Smith of HSLDA, have resisted trying to get any legislation, because the current situation is *good*. Any effort to draft a good law could be disastrous; regardless of how positively worded it is going in, by the time it went through committees and discussions on the floor, there is ever possiblity that it could end up being like NY or PA or any of the other states which require much more oversight than is require now...which is none at all.

 

Texas does not have a homeschool law. It had a court case in 1994 which decided that homeschools were the equivalent of private schools in Texas, which are completely unregulated by the state. So Californians would love to have a similar court case, since the private school law is similar.

 

But no, we don't want legislation if it can be avoided at all.

[Janet in WA]

You're right. Thanks for the correction. I should have remembered that because the court case happened in the county where we lived (Tarrant).

[sassenach]

Texas does not have a homeschool law. It had a court case in 1994 which decided that homeschools were the equivalent of private schools in Texas, which are completely unregulated by the state. So Californians would love to have a similar court case, since the private school law is similar.

 

But no, we don't want legislation if it can be avoided at all.

 

 

 

Well, now it looks like California has a court case that says homeschools are NOT private schools. What do we do with that?

[Colleen]

I'll go on record as one who does not support the establishment of home schools as private schools. In the popular vernacular, they are two different animals, and I feel that the two terms should not be used interchangeably. I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

[Ellie]

I'll go on record as one who does not support the establishment of home schools as private schools. In the popular vernacular, they are two different animals, and I feel that the two terms should not be used interchangeably. I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

 

It is not something I implied. It is something I said outright. It is something which the people who are most learned and experienced in constitutional law have believed that *in California*, where no current homeschool law exists, it is better to rely on the very vague private school law rather than try to introduce brand-new legislation. Of course it would be great to have a good homeschool law, such as the one in Illinois, or Wisconsin, or--even better--Oklahoma, where its constitution specifically allows for parents to teach their children at home. California is the state where the only time that such a law was considered, back in the early 90s, homeschooling would have been illegal under any circumstances.

 

Legislation *could* be a good thing, but it could also go horribly wrong. Letting sleeping dogs lie is the best course of action *at this time* in California.

[Colleen]

Leaving the situation as is in CA is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie because the dogs aren't truly sleeping. I believe establishing home schools as "private schools" leaves the door open to trouble ~ e.g. when courts ultimately construe (justifiably, imo) the two as different entities. Your concerns regarding what legislation might look like are valid, of course, but bottom line, I believe wording that preserves the right to home school is invaluable.

[Ellie]

Leaving the situation as is in CA is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie because the dogs aren't truly sleeping. I believe establishing home schools as "private schools" leaves the door open to trouble ~ e.g. when courts ultimately construe (justifiably, imo) the two as different entities. Your concerns regarding what legislation might look like are valid, of course, but bottom line, I believe wording that preserves the right to home school is invaluable.

 

But this has worked for over 30 years.

 

It isn't that the courts construe the two as different entities. It's that the law in California, as it stands right now, does not require certified teachers, a minimum number of students, or anything else that would keep a single family with only 1 child of filing an affidavit as a private school. Unless the legislature wants to change the private school law--and campus-based private schools all over the state would rise up in alarm over that--then there is no reason *not* that homeschoolers cannot file their affidavits.

 

One of the co-founders of CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association), Karen Woodfin, visited homeschoolers all over the state back in 1982 with some proposed legislation. It would have been a *wonderful* law, clearly giving parents/guardians the right to teach their children at home, free of government oversight. She got lots of flack from the homeschoolers she met with, though, over little things such as parents' being required to pass on records to any schools their dc might attend in the future; I thought one man was going to explode over that line. And before too long, she was advised by the newly born HSLDA that that would have been a bad time to introduce legislation, given the nature of the legislators at that time; by the time the bill made it through, it would probably have been draconian. Nothing has changed.

 

I have no doubt that HSLDA and others are ready and waiting for the right moment, but this is not it.

[Colleen]

It isn't that the courts construe the two as different entities. It's that the law in California, as it stands right now, does not require certified teachers, a minimum number of students, or anything else that would keep a single family with only 1 child of filing an affidavit as a private school.

 

I know that.:) I didn't say the courts currently construe home school and private schools as different entities; I said when they do. I believe they are not one and the same. I believe for legal purposes they should not be considered essentially the same.

 

I have no doubt that HSLDA and others are ready and waiting for the right moment, but this is not it.

 

I have no idea if that's true of HSLDA as I don't involve myself with that organization.

[Leah]

Being a Californian, I cannot even fathom a positive legislative decision in our state at this time! I shudder to think of what our legislative body would put together regarding homeschooling!!! This is no Oklahoma. I think our current situation works quite well and it has for many years.

 

I would never want to disregard the seriousness of this ruling, but there have been various challenges to homeschooling in CA over the years and it has always been dealt with quite satisfactorily by HSLDA. I know that some people have issue with them, but they are quite helpful here and I have no doubt that they will take any and all needed steps to help preserve homeschooling rights here.

[Storm Bay]

I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

 

I think one of the questions now is, are sleeping dogs still lying? It's hard to say from here. I hope someone fights the homeschooling ruling part of this, especially if there is any other case law that contradicts it. Perhaps there's something unconstitutional about it--I'm not an expert on that. The best thing I think would be for that part to be overruled (or is the term overturned?).