Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Home schooling your children is unconstitutional in California
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 07, 2008

Sounds like a constitutional amendment moment for California. The following is from the actual ruling of the Court Of Appeal Of The State Of California, Second Appellate District (HT: Ted Bezat):
In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300), we consider the question whether parents can legally “home school” their children. The attorney for two of the three minor children in the case has petitioned this court for extraordinary writ relief, asking us to direct the juvenile court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or private school, and actually attend such a school.

The trial court’s reason for declining to order public or private schooling for the children was its belief that parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home. However, California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.

Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court’s refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child.
Essentially the ruling makes it a civil offense to home school your child unless the child is also enrolled in a private school full-time (and attends that school) or the parent has valid teaching credentials.

Certainly, this is a ruling the teacher's unions will love as it further strengthens their government enforced monopoly. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they had a hand in writing the law as well.

The court cited a USSC case as the basis of their ruling:
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468], held that: ‘No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.’ [¶] Included in the laws governing the educational program were those regulating the attendance of children at school and the power of the state to enforce compulsory education of children within the state at some school is beyond question.
Of course the term "some school" is interpreted by the California court to mean a school of its definition, which obviously excludes home schooling, or so it is claiming. Frankly, I find that to be a rather tenuous finding. But when you have the all the guns, you get to define things however you like.

From their definition of "some school" (but not "home school") they conclude:
Full-time public school education for persons between the ages of six and eighteen is compulsory under California’s compulsory education law (Ed. Code, 6 § 48200 et seq.),2 “and each parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of the pupil shall send the pupil to the public full-time day school . . . and for the full time designated as the length of the schoolday by the governing board of the school district” (§ 48200).

Exemptions to compulsory public school education are made for, among others, children who (1) attend a private full-time day school (§ 48222) or (2) are instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught (§ 48224). These provisions of the Education Code (in their predecessor section numbers) were held to be constitutional in People v. Turner (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. 861, 865 et seq., (“Turner”), and an appeal to the United States Supreme Court from that decision was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question in Turner v. People of the State of California (1954) 347 U.S. 972 [98 L.Ed. 1112, 74 S.Ct. 785]. Turner was cited with approval in In re Shinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d at p. 694 (“Shinn”).
And you simply have to love this if you have any love of freedom and liberty:
The Legislature has not amended the substantive aspects of the compulsory education statutes that were analyzed in Turner and Shinn. Like those courts, we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,” which Article IX, section 1 of our Constitution states is “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.” We agree with the Shinn court’s statement that “the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.”
To include parents and their educational preferences.

Compliance with the law, obviously, is their only recourse, given the fact that they no longer have a right, either legal or constitutional (only moral) to school their children:
Because parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling within the provisions of these laws, parents who fail to do so 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. (§§ 48291 & 48293.)

Additionally, the parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt.
Any wonder why freedom loving people are fleeing California?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You might say his ruling just fits the laws, and thus im ok with it. Based on the CA books i would say he did his job to the letter, from what i read it seems that he ruled according to them, but man i can definitely harsh on his quotes i found in this article.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
and here i thought it was to teach them science? o.0 color me confused.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws."
Watch this one, anything not spelled out means they can legislate it to death, sadly this is the inevitable future of the leftist thought. I don’t have a right in th constitution to eat beef, are we soon to all be legislated into vegetarians?
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
As a CA homeschooler, we’re already planning our exit (to Oregon? How long before they follow CA’s lead). Only public outrage is going to save us at this point. Oh, and divine intervention, but as a homeschooler, you already knew I was counting on that.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Any wonder why freedom loving people are fleeing California?
They are? Where are your data to back this claim up?

If they are, maybe they can move to some nice freedom loving Red state, you know, like Texas, where the state is still fighting to ban dildos. I kid you not. Texas is actually fighting in federal court to maintain a prohibition against dildos. Because we certainly can’t let consenting adults have sex toys.

And what are the other three states that ban dildos? Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Red states one and all.

Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids? The First? The Fourth? Tell you what, I’ll keep looking.

Wingers have a funny habit of strict construction on some issues (abortion) and penumbrac analysis on others (home schooling).
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And what are the other three states that ban dildos?
The article is about the right to homeschooling children and MK responds with questioning bans on dildos.

And yet he wonders why the ’wingers’ laugh when he shows up.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"
You know, if schools did any of those three things to any degree, some of us might be less tempted to homeschool our children.

I mean, I don’t want the school to produce people who uncritically accept everything America does is correct, but producing people who uncritically accept everything America does is wrong is hardly any better. (Anyone who insists on straw-manning this call for patriotic balance into a call for mindless education extremism will simply be met with my derision for their lack of reading skills.)

I know that’s not the only reasons you might want to homeschool, I’m just saying.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids? The First? The Fourth? Tell you what, I’ll keep looking.
How about the Constititutional amendment that, per Hillary, says medical care is a right not a privilage?

Look for that while you’re in there searching.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The article is about the right to homeschooling children and MK responds with questioning bans on dildos.

And yet he wonders why the ’wingers’ laugh when he shows up.
Ha ha - you’re the one who made the blanket statement that freedom loving people (not just home school loving people) are leaving California.

Do you even read what you write?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"3 or 4 Red states bad because dildos" doesn’t counter "freedom-lovers fleeing California", mk.

They could flee to Oregon, which is Blue as the day is long, and have more freedom in nigh every respect than in California.

(Such as the fundamental human right - and enumerated constitutional right - to arms.

Relatedly, mk, where’s the Constitutional right to privacy per-se that a dildo ban violates?

You mean it’s not in the Constitution explicitly? Huh.

Just like the power of Congress and the States generally to control education isn’t?)
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids?
The Due Process Clause, which bars the government from creating arbitrary and irrational crimes such as "homeschooling without a license."
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.com
Story looks false. Or at least inaccurate.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php
 
Written By: Rollory
URL: http://
"Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids? The First? The Fourth? Tell you what, I’ll keep looking. "

Actually the matter of education is handled under the clause that says anything not specifically handled by the federal govt is purview of the state govt. That is why there is talk of putting an admendment on the STATE ballot to admend the STATE constitution in this matter. So you would be looking in the wrong place by looking at the US constitution.

And it kinda worries me that you are so up to date on laws banning sex toys. BTW I live in Texas and I havent seen or heard anything of the like which you describe. That doesnt mean it isnt out there but umm not something that I go out of my way to find out about. Apparantly unlike some.





 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
On no! TX is violating the "Dildo clause" in the Bill of Rights!

All you Texans, grab your guns (no pun intended!)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Do you even read what you write?
You couldn’t ask for a better or more ironic statement than that, even if you tried.

MK, you are a jewel, although not of the kind that anyone would find particularly valuable.

Glad you stopped by in your feces flinging tour - moonbats are always welcome here and that’s especially true for you. You never disappoint.

Heh ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
McQ, as bad as the decision may be on the substance, your heading is off base. Nothing in the court decision implies that there is anything "unconstitutional" about home schooling, only that it is not constitutionally protected. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision or simply allows it to stand, all it will take to rectify the situation is an amendment to the Education Code - assuming there are enough decent people left in California to make that happen.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids? The First? The Fourth? Tell you what, I’ll keep looking. "

Actually the matter of education is handled under the clause that says anything not specifically handled by the federal govt is purview of the state govt. That is why there is talk of putting an admendment on the STATE ballot to admend the STATE constitution in this matter. So you would be looking in the wrong place by looking at the US constitution.
Congress, and all too often the courts have deemed education matters come under the interstate commerce clause.........
there has been some pull back from that......ie... the ruling on the federal gun ban within X number of feet of a school....... but it really is still alive and well.

Home schoolers as a whole are doing just great in this country..... Doesn’t that in itself justify the movement......... I mean really, what is the goal of education.


 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Yeah, this one won’t stand (and probably isn’t relevant). "Almost every" home school in CA is registered as a private school; what’s to stop them from being so registered? There’s been a ton of legal analysis which has been upheld in more than a few truancy courts that registration as a private school plus honest maintenance of grading and assignment records proves non-truancy.

This judge might be a wacko, or he might have been ruling on a more narrow basis (perhaps those parents hadn’t registered their homeschool as a private school?).
 
Written By: William Tanksley Jr
URL: http://
Where are your data to back this claim up?
Well, this is interesting:
If you want to move, say, from Austin, Texas to Southern California, the moving van will cost you $407 to rent. But if you want to move out of California to Austin, the same van costs $1,831. ... The biggest discrepancy we could find was $557 from Nashville, Tennessee to Los Angeles, but the trip costs nearly eight times more, or $4,285, to move to Nashville from L.A.
There is only one conceivable reason is costs a lot more to rent a van out of California than into California: significantly more people want to rent a van out than a van in.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
A lot of parents aren’t even competent to be raising kids, let alone preparing them for the world.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Oh, and by the way, which constitutional amendment says that parents have a right to home school their kids?"
Which constitutional amendment says that you have a right to cultivate begonias?

What’s your point?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Which constitutional amendment says that you have a right to cultivate begonias?

What’s your point?
Unless you are arguing that children are chattel property that the parents can dispose of as they please, what’s yours?

If they are not property, then who, if anyone, can place restrictions on the parents’ raising of them? Presumably someone can enforce the child’s rights, yes?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"A lot of parents aren’t even competent to be raising kids, let alone preparing them for the world."

Where as this statement is true the question arises is the govt more competent than the parents? And why are parents who are competent punished by the actions of those who arent?

You have the govt saying parents are are responsible if their 12 year old doesnt go to school and can go to jail but yet the parents dont have the right to know if that same 12 year old gets an abortion.

If parents are endangering their children then punish those parents and THOSE PARENTS ALONE.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Which constitutional amendment says that you have a right to cultivate begonias?
The same one that says you have a right to cultivate cocaine, marijuana and opium. The only difference is that there is no statute saying you can’t cultivate begonias, therefore, you can.
What’s your point?
That when state laws are at issue, anything that’s not unconstitutional is constitutional. What’s your point, or does the very question assume a fact not in evidence?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Shorter Xlrq: "Everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited."

Got it. Thank you.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Shorter Xlrq: "Everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited."
Wrong. He said that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted.

Didn’t you make a dramatic exit not too long ago? That didn’t take long.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
"Didn’t you make a dramatic exit not too long ago?"
Absolutely not and you couldn’t find it to save your life.
"He said that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted."
Oh, yeah? In the constitution? Like home schooling, for instance?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Shorter Billy Beck: "I can’t read or comprehend a simple English sentence to save my life."

OK, maybe not that short.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"He said that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted."

Oh, yeah? In the constitution? Like home schooling, for instance?
The first line obviously refers to the state (not anything explicitly prohibited is permitted). I’m not sure how the state can home school.

Billy, do you think children can be considered the property of their parents?

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No.

Idiot.

 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Billy, you seem to be having trouble grasping the basics, so I’ll try this one more time, typing real slow.

1. When the federal government acts, anything that’s not authorized by the federal constitution is unconstitutional.
2. When the states act, anything that is not prohibited by the federal constitution is constitutional.
3. The federal constitution says jack sh*t about home schooling.
4. Therefore, any federal law mandating or prohibiting home schooling is presumptively unconstitutional, while any state law mandating, prohibiting or regulating home schooling is presumptively constitutional.
5. California law (not any constitution, state or federal) prohibits home schooling.
6. Therefore, home schooling is illegal in California.

Any questions?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Therefore, any federal law mandating or prohibiting home schooling is presumptively unconstitutional, while any state law mandating, prohibiting or regulating home schooling is presumptively constitutional."
I heard you the first time.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You obviously didn’t understand it, then, else you wouldn’t have posted the idiotic shorter-my-enemy comment to the effect that everything the constitution doesn’t mention is automatically prohibited.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Or, he was trying to tell MK ultra that the Constitution of the United States, which MK mumbled about an amendment to, has NOTHING to do with the discussion.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
That could have explained the begonia analogy, but not his shorter-my-enemy response to me.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
California has hit rock bottom with this dumb law! In Missouri I pray we never get to that point as our public schools are in a questionable state. At least in Missouri it is NOT illegal or unconstitutional to homeschool your children.

Come to Missouri where we still "think" before we open our mouths!

Just someone who IS a teacher.
 
Written By: Anna Green Qualls
URL: http://
Jeez people. So many posts, so much ignorance of what actually happened. The court did not rule against home schooling in CA. It ruled against home schooling while officially enrolling the kids in a private school. Basically the court is telling the parents that if they want to home school they need to do it according to the methods specified in law.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Apparently nobody here can be bothered to actually do the research though, much easier to go off half-cocked.
 
Written By: Rollory
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider