California Homeschooling Controversy

As many of you are aware, there is a major controversy brewing in California concerning an appellate court decision earlier this week on the legality of homeschooling in this state.

This follows on the heels of another disturbing ruling, by the 9th Circuit Court, that parents do not have the right to guide their children's education. Elsewhere in the country, a federal court ruled that parents don't have the right to control what their children are taught in public school.

I have not commented on the new ruling to date as, frankly, the entire situation is very confusing. Much of the analysis I've read about the potential impact of the court's opinion conflicts; and the court opinion itself seems to be at odds with existing state laws.

Californians have always had a number of ways to legally homeschool, including via public school (often a charter school), using a credentialed teacher, or by forming a private school (typically called the "R-4" method). The R-4 is used by most families which homeschool independently, free of government oversight.

The ruling insists that students must physically attend an "accredited private school" if they are not attending public school or using a credentialed teacher. Well, many private schools are not "accredited." This ruling also conflicts with the public school programs in California which utilize homeschooling. California Virtual Academy, which serves thousands of homeschooling students, is just one example.

Some of the language in the ruling -- such as saying that children must go to school so others can check on their welfare -- seems to be un-Constitutional and have no basis in law: "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Why don't we have school year-round in that case? And where is it legislated that children must interact with people outside their family? What other parental decisions does the government have the right to make, following the court's so-called logic? What a bizarre idea, that school exists not to educate, but to forcibly separate and protect children from their own parents.

Some of the other wording in the ruling also seems, not to be hyperbolic, fascist -- the same kind of thinking used to outlaw homeschooling in Germany since the '30s and continuing till today. It says, in part, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation..." The court also found compulsory government-approved education does not in any way violate parents' First Amendment rights.

The court's view seems to be that children are wards of the state, rather than that we are free people whose taxes have paid for a public school system we may -- or may not -- use.

One comment circulating on the Internet noted the irony that courts will uphold a parent's right to murder her unborn child, yet once that child is born the courts will not trust parents to do what's best for that child and keep it safe!

Another irony is that many public schools are operating with unaccredited teachers who use "emergency credentials," so technically even public schools would fall short of complying with the court's ruling.

And of course, it must be noted that despite the court placing such value on "in person" attendance at school and credentialed teachers, the track records of many schools are terrible. Homeschoolers, on the other hand, as a general group perform higher on standardized testing and are increasingly sought by prestigious universities. My daughter's university, USC, as just one example, has someone in the admissions office whose job it is to recruit and screen homeschoolers.

The California Homeschool Network and other organizations are working to have the State Supreme Court depublish the opinion, which means the ruling would apply only to the family in that specific court case and not have the weight of law. This might be the best outcome, rather than running the risk of having a higher court uphold the appellate ruling.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to his credit, today called the court's ruling "outrageous" and said "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."

The bottom line is that California homeschoolers are a hardy, independent-minded group, and if any judges or lawmakers think that homeschoolers will meekly be returning to bricks and mortar public schools, they have a big surprise coming.

Homeschooling in California is here to stay.

Further links: Desert Dispatch, San Diego Union Tribune, Modesto Bee, Voice of San Diego. Also, there are some knowledgeable, interesting comments following a post at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Late evening update: The latest from the L.A. Times.

Most of the article is good news, focusing on Governor Schwarzenegger's support of homeschoolers. However, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction saying he wants all homeschoolers to have "partnerships" with school districts or charter schools, to make sure they have "the right curriculum," is troubling. It's simply not the Superintendent's business what homeschoolers are doing to educate their children, just as it's not his business if parents enroll their child at a parochial school, a Montessori school, or any other private school. Nor is it his business what curriculum parents use; for instance, would the state approve a Christian curriculum? Charter schools and access to curriculum materials are fabulous ideas, but there should be complete freedom of choice.

It's a definite concern that legislation meant to "protect" homeschooling in California could instead end up restricting parents' freedom, which is why simply depublishing the opinion and maintaining the status quo -- continuing to follow state codes which have worked well for decades -- would be the ideal outcome.

More from The Washington Times.

Sunday Update: An editorial from the Orange County Register: "This is a fundamental freedom issue – not just a debate over education – that cannot be left unaddressed." Elsewhere on the website, the paper called the court's decision "shockingly totalitarian."