Update: LocalHS.com has the best round-up of available information I could find. I particularly found this entry interesting (scroll past all the white space). As well as Tammy’s from Just Enough and Nothing More. It appears the family did not have good defense in their court appointed attorneys who did not know much about homeschooling and CA groups seem confident they will be able to win on appeal.
And to think I was actually feeling relieved at the ability to extend my vision beyond the state of Nebraska for a spell. But the first news story I come across is this mess in California. It appears there was a problem with this particular family, but the court did not rule on the specifics of the child abuse allegations, nor even the insufficient education the lower court found the parents to be providing, but rather on the act of homeschooling itself. I don’t know that I can provide any better coverage than Crimson Wife in her two entries:
- CA Judges: Parents have no constitutional right to homeschool
- Explanation of Religious Exemption in Long Case
But I did want to pull a quote from the decision and make an observation.
These cases [Turner, Board of Education v. Allen] were a sensible corollary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters: if the State must satisfy its interest in secular education through the instrument of private schools, it has a proper interest in the manner in which those schools perform their secular educational function. Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three (pdf)
Does that mean what I think it means? That because the state must by its nature provide a secular education, it has a “proper interest” in guaranteeing that all education is secular? So a good school, be it private or homeschool, can teach reading, art, science, math, history, etc., but if that instruction by its very nature is not secular, the state has grounds to stop the instruction?
But unless you are Old Order Amish, religious exemptions do not apply nor shall they be considered.
Just how much weight does this court carry? According to Wikipedia:
The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is divided into six appellate districts based on geography. The decisions of the Courts of Appeal are binding on superior courts, and they in turn are bound by the Supreme Court of California. Notably, all published California appellate decisions are binding on all trial courts, unlike the federal court system, where each trial court is bound only by the appellate decisions from the particular circuit in which it sits, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. Decisions by a Court of Appeal panel are not binding on other panels.
Interesting. Is there anyone working on this in California who has more information about what this decision could potentially mean for the many homeschoolers currently in California? It would be nice if the family didn’t have this issue of potential abuse hanging over them, but the decision really had nothing to do with the specifics of their situation but the constitutionality and legality of homeschooling.
______
The Ashbrook Center has an interesting and thoughtful post which looks at the problem set up by CA law. This is what essentially bothers me: the freedom to homeschool seems to be based on the same sort of legal foundation as it is here in Nebraska. Although we have a great deal of liberty in practice, it is by loopholes in the current law which an actual court case could easily close. We are relying on the opinion of a commission convened by a governor ten years ago and an attorney general to maintain our freedom.
The Conservative UAW Guy has a brief entry which does not really add much to Crimson Wife’s posts, but the discussion is interesting. If you like discussing this prompt, anyway:
Sorry Jim, but I agree that homeschooling, by and large, is not a good way to prepare children for the rigors of adult society in America…
Photo courtesy coutinfo.ca.gov
[tags]homeschool, homeschooling, California[/tags]
I guess, ‘Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed’ (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/) does not only apply to the science curriculum. As in Big Science, Big Education has its tentacles everywhere.
I thought the issue of religious exemption significant, as well. Voiding the protection of religious freedom of expression, unless you’re Old Order Amish, is outrageous. I guess government officials feel no threat from pacifists.
And why didn’t they focus on the issue of abuse? Was it unfounded, or, even more sinister, are they trying to expose homeschooling as a means of hiding abuse.
According to Crimson Mom’s research, one of the reasons to prosecute this family was so “people…could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives.” This only strengthens fears. Homeschooling does not equal abuse.
Is there anyone working on this in California who has more information about what this decision could potentially mean for the many homeschoolers currently in California?
***
There are posters on the HSWatch list at yahoogroups.com who are in CA and say they will be updating that list as more is known.
Nance
Your initial concern is a little misplaced. What the court means is that the state has an interest in “secular education” and can require that every school or educational setting provide it, along with everything else it provides. So I have to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, civics, American history, and so on, but I can also teach Bible, theology, moral principles grounded in Scripture or natural law, and so on. There’s an opening here, but it’s not as big as you think. Neither courts nor states can prescribe “orthodoxy” in all education. That won’t necessarily stop them from trying, but you’d likely win on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. They can ask for results (e.g., an acceptable knowledge of American history and the principles of American government), but can’t prescribe how you get there.
Thank you, Joe. I didn’t offer my thoughts as any proof of anything, but it seemed like an odd statement. The interest of the state should be in education, not a specifically secular one. And I question how far this goes:
it has a proper interest in the manner in which those schools perform their secular educational function.
Which means it isn’t just about the ends, but also the means of achieving an education. Here I think they are specifying the certification, etc., but methodology also comes under that.
Which could potentially mean a lot of things.
Nance, I don’t know. I will update if I find anything more specific. From what I understand, no one really knew of this case until the decision was published.
Forgot to say…if you find anything more, please feel free to update!
This is what I really don’t understand, however, and it seems to be the central point:
HSLDA says there is nothing to worry about and this decision doesn’t change the status of homeschooling in CA:
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.
http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803030.asp
But that stands in direct contradiction to what the ruling says:
Additionally, the Turner court rejected, and noted that courts in other states also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at homes come within private full-time day school exemption in then section 16624 (now section 48222). The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or a private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home.
(decision linked in post, page nine)
I am hoping that there is nothing to worry about, but it seems that this may lead to a few more cases coming before the courts. I don’t know.
After reading this, I feel the need to ingest some serious chocolate before I take my children to church tonight.
Church is still allowed, isn’t it? Or is that not covered by the Constitution either?
Will someone in CA please send me a memo?
Maybe we need to send chocolate to California. The granola is getting to them. : )
Tammy Takahashi of the California Homeschool Network mentioned that there was going to be a meeting today between reps for the 3 statewide homeschooling groups (CHN, Homeschool Assn. of CA, and the Christian Home Educators Assn. of CA) to review the case and discuss the next steps. Apparently none of them nor HSLDA were aware of the case prior to the court ruling.
That just goes to show that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Had the Longs and Sunland Christian School contacted one of the above organizations for assistance, perhaps this bad ruling could’ve been averted
I agree, Crimson Wife. With good representation, perhaps it wouldn’t have gone this far. Maybe it will end up with a better and clearer law, but somehow I doubt it. For some reason, I just don’t trust CA. : )
I look forward to hearing what they decide in their meeting…and the hopeful victory on appeal.
Dana, I’m not a lawyer but I do have some experience in this kind of work. I see the key part of this ruling, despite all the “opinion” written into it, to be that the homeschool-relevant ACTION was to remand to the trial court, its original “erroneous” finding that the Long family could legally “homeschool” in CA.
It directed the trial court to re-do its fact-finding on the family’s education status and its ruling under the existing CA legal code, to make sure the Long family complies with it — the Code which everyone in CA has always told us treats legal “homeschool” as a one-family private school, filing a form called the R-4.
So whatever all the appellate court’s expressions of opinion about homeschooling and private schooling and the mom’s lack of teaching credentials to tutor etc, if the trial court finds “correctly” that the existing CA Code does allow a single family to “privately educate” by filing an R-4, this ruling in effect changes nothing about legal homeschooling, combined with religious education or not.
This part of the ruling just caught my attention, not that it has any particular bearing on anything but my own interest. Hence the posting.
But is this decision about the legality in this situation, or of homeschooling in general? I don’t know. I don’t know what paperwork the family did or did not file and I know that it has been longstanding practice for families to register as schools to qualify under the law. That is actually similar to the way we do it here.
However, the decision starts out not by asking whether this family had complied with the law, but by stating:
In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally “home school” their children.
Not whether this particular family was in compliance with the law.
Later, they refer to other cases:
The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or a private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home.
Now, I am not a lawyer nor have I ever worked in the legal field. But it seems to me that their decision is that the Legislature intended that students be taught in a school setting or by a certified tutor and that home education was not intended.
HSLDA and you both say this decision changes nothing and that this case changes nothing for anyone. That is great and I hope that is correct. But I do not think this particular court case is something to just shrug at.
I know the homeschool groups are working together in CA and will likely have more information after they’ve figured it out. I’m not really one to jump to conclusions, but I don’t really see where the decision affects only this family.
We don’t disagree then
— I meant to put into a proper public policy frame some of the (improperly uninformed and self-indulgent imo) language in the decision, not to suggest we just shrug!
I know..but all the other discussions I have had jump on the reliability of WND. The going philosophy seems to be that if they reported it, it must be wrong. I did eventually read it, but all my concerns came directly from the decision.
If they are ill-founded, I’m a happy camper. There are a lot of things I’m happy to be wrong about.
It’s strange to me to see Pierce v. Society of Sisters mentioned with a mandate for “secular education.” The Society of Sisters case was a big win for religious education – a ruling which PREVENTED the state from FORCING students to submit to only public school instruction.
I’ve seen that alot on this case- the whole thing being dismissed because WND reported it. Hey- even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Well, I suppose we DO disagree about onething then — World Net Daily is not a reliable source, and its reporting in this case of religious persecution right up there with the Nazis was not right. (Sure was effective at exploiting this child welfare case to draw attention to its own agenda though.) So I would have been another of the folks annoying Dana and Sunniemom by objecting to WND-induced reactionism.
I don’t read WND — like JJ Ross I find it reactionary — so I’ve only read Dana’s and Crimson Wife’s posts and I followed the links to the court documents. This is an abuse case, not a homeschooling case, so the court should not be debating the legality of homeschooling, for this family or in general. And there is legitimate concern over wording handed down by an apellate court, not because of this case and this family, but because that wording will be binding on other homeschoolers in future cases. The court must ensure that its ruling does not impinge upon the liberties of those who have committed no crimes.
What the court SHOULD be considering in this case is whether the state can impose a restriction on parental right to homeschool in cases of *known* physical or sexual abuse in which homeschooling may hide or enable the abuse, AND, can the court restrict such parents from homeschooling where such an order conflicts with the religious beliefs of the family. The Old Order Amish, since they are the going example, believe as an *objective matter of established doctrine and practice*, that any education beyond eighth grade is vain, prideful, and worldly — it is not a preference, or a matter of “God has called our family to do this”, but that it is objectively wrong and always sinful, for any Amish, to pursue education beyond eighth grade. In other words, to mandate that an Amish child be sent to high school would be like ordering a Muslim to eat pork.
It is usually the policy of social services to as far as possible respect the religion of the family, and to allow children in state custody to practice the religion of their natural family, etc. However, people who abuse their children rightly forfeit their parental rights, including custody, visitation, and determination. This is a fairly clear case of physical and sexual abuse with a history of the same, and I think the court’s requirement that the remaining children in the family be educated in a setting in which other adults can monitor them is not an unreasonable one *in this case*.
???
JJ Ross, I don’t understand your comment. I never said WND was a reliable source. I only said that I objected to the assumption that because WND reported on it that the story was automatically false. There is a difference. I have read their article, but didn’t link to it because I found nothing worth linking to. As I stated, all of my concerns are from the case.
Not from WND which I don’t read.
Thank you, Rebecca. I agree with you 100%. I think JJRoss misunderstood my comment. WND is reactionary and annoying to no end.
My stance and concern never had anything to do with them. My frustration has been that in trying to discuss this, the response is often, “Well, you can’t trust WND.”
Problem is, I hadn’t read WND. I had only read the court document. I didn’t read their two cents on Nazi Germany and Wolfgang Drautz until after a couple discussions and I thought I might as well know what they were saying.
Climb down, JJ. I have never referred to WND as reliable, and I would think the comparison to a broken clock would not indicate confidence. Every comment I have made on this case has been in reference to the published ruling, not the WND article.
Dana- Did you read the link on http://madisonamps.org/2008/03/02/knee-jerks/ to the family’s history with DHS? This is a seriously dysfunctional family, and based on the available information, I can’t see why the court is ruling about home education when there are accusations of beatings and sexual molestation, as well as one daughter self-mutilating. Like sending the kids to school is going to do…. what? Has anyone seen whether or not criminal charges are going to be brought against the father or the family friend who is accused of molesting the daughter?
I understand what Rebecca is saying, but if homeschooling is not an option because it is considered dangerous for the child to be home, then homeschooling is not the issue- removing the child from an unsafe environment altogether would seem to be the sensible recourse.
Ok, I’m going to just start this comment over because it made no sense.
I read the entry but missed the court report. Thank you! Yes, it appears the family was quite dysfunctional and shouldn’t be homeschooling.
However, it doesn’t look like they are removing custody at this point. And I don’t have a problem with a court taking a family’s right to homeschool away given proven abuse, even if it isn’t to the point of removing custody. Children can become wards of the state, but remain in a parent’s custody. Rights can also remain in tact while a family undergoes counseling and parenting classes.
And while a family is at that level, I think it is reasonable for a court to rule that a particular family may not homeschool. So I understand what you are saying about home as a dangerous environment and removing a child from the home rather than just the homeschool. But there are also instances where the interest of family preservation may allow for a “monitored second chance.” But I would understand a court determining that homeschool was not an option for the family.
This gives rise to an interesting problem:
1) This isn’t a ruling that I could see CA homeschoolers wanting to see stand. It has too much potential for setting precedence.
2) How would a homeschool organization counsel in this situation? You don’t exactly want to defend child abuse.
I don’t know what options are available. I trust that is why the state organizations are talking so much about with each other and not so much publicly until they figure out exactly what they want to do.
Dana, I think this finding is very worrisome. Have you read “Required by California 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,” said the appellate court, “(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.”
Homeschoolers in California have used an option of doing independent study under an umbrella school. According to this, that is not a legal option. Finally, California law states that an instructor at a homeschool must be “capable of teaching.” This decisions legally defines “capable of teaching” as holding a valid state teaching license for the grade being taught.
I think that if this becomes a legal precedence homeschooling in California would be illegal. And, in their follow-up HSLDA agreed.
Finally, California law states that an instructor at a homeschool…
That should say private school (declaring your “school” a private school is the other way people have legally home schooled in California).
Dana- that makes sense, that a family be allowed a ‘monitored second chance’. The problem is that the family’s history was not included in any of the articles I read until I saw Mr. Mertz’s blog. So on the surface, and just by reading the ruling, one does not get a very good picture of all the issues involved. I don’t think the ruling clearly states that it is being applied to this family in particular for specific reasons- it sounds like a major overhaul of home education statutes in CA.
WND may be an internet National Enquirer, but they definitely broke the story and made it possible for HSing groups in CA to get involved. Everyone I have emailed in CA about this knew NOTHING until WND published that article.
This is the way I look at it. If I were in a situation where I felt that something dear to me (like my children) were about to be taken from me and attention might help, I’d contact any and everyone. Even WND. : )
Julie, I’m not sure what you are referring to (Finally, California law…) unless that was in one of the comments I edited. I know that is what homeschoolers use. It is sort of the way it is set up here in NE. (I am an unaccredited private school.) However, the court seemed to attempt to close this option here:
The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or a private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home.
I don’t know. But it seems like they are saying that simply declaring yourself a school is not sufficient.
OK, now I get it. You were referring to your own comment held in my moderation queu. I agree. But the history of the case does add a troublesome dynamic.
Why can’t these cases involve people with no other records or clouds hanging over them?
Silly me…Nance, I thought you were asking a question. I just noticed you were answering mine. Joined. ; )
Sunniemom, I did misunderstand you and Dana, that you don’t credit SND, but I think you misunderstood me too. I explain (and apologize) in some depth at the Snook trackback, and had a chuckle over it with Dana.
We all as diverse homeschoolers don’t just have a failure to communicate, or a failure to resolve “religious” differences. What we have — as home education advocates — is a failure to think together for ourselves about how to help ourselves, in ways that get us all what we want and need.
Thanks to Dana’s new blognetnews site, I noticed this from April at “For His Glory and My Good”:
“If you are not a member of a homeschool organization – join one now. They help to protect your right to homeschool. Volunteer to help them in their endeavors. Then, relax, knowing help is on the way, and as one homeschool mom put it, ‘Go to park day and play.’ ”
That is hardly thinking for ourselves! In Florida, that kind of pat-on-the-head patronizing was how I first met other upstart moms educating ourselves on law and politics, doing our own legislative and judicial legwork, homework, mindwork — rather than obediently doing as we were told and relying on FPEA and HSLDA lawyers, who would pronounce, define and proclaim what was good for us and what was dangerous to think or do, and imperiously issue scripts for what we should say, to the legislative offices they would direct us to call. When we weren’t at the park tending our flocks. . .
So just to be clear, no one is suggesting all this mobilized national concern is a GOOD thing, right? — that WND somehow helps us as some valuable watchdog, that we should be grateful for it creating this wildfire social contagion of hyped-up religious hs persecution fears spreading across the nation and infecting every meeting place, driving new prospects into joining paid “legal defense” groups, so they can put difficult legal matters out of their pretty little heads, relax and “go to park day and play?”
. . .it sounds like a recruiting drive for HSLDA and NHELD, and now for CA’s big, apparently lawyer-staffed support groups.
That whole approach actually undermines rather than protects our collective freedom to homeschool individually as we find best with our own families, free from all interference, governance or exploitation.
When you read the CA decision, the antagonism of the court toward the family becomes clear. Truly, hard cases make bad law. Some thoughts about it here.
Jennifer, you’re right. Read the Pierce v. Society of Sisters case and you find this paragraph: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. [Emphasis mine]
The appeals court overreached. I don’t know what all the ramifications will be, but you hate to see a court doing this, regardless.
JJ Ross, I think everyone needs to decide for themselves whether membership in any particular group is advantageous. I am not currently a member of any group, but likely will be in the near future.
I disagree that joining means you sit back and relax. But this is what I would want in the ideal state organization:
Updates on legislation in a summary format with links to the actual document. Links to contact information is also nice. I don’t mind a position statement, but I do tire of the e-alerts which inform me what to think of an issue and even write out what to say.
However, membership in an organization should not mean you go to the park and stop worrying about your liberties. Take two examples:
The NSEA (NE NEA) is furiously fighting legislation which will likely pass this session. At the hearing, their representative, Jay Sears, and the Commissioner of Education testified against the bill, but where were the thousands of teachers employed in this state? Not one showed up. I doubt they heard half the ripple over this bill that they did over the homeschool bill.
Because although many of us do have membership, we also take our liberty as a personal responsibility to maintain. There is a reason that we have historically seen a gradual liberalization of the laws despite our small numbers. Part of that is the strength of the cause of liberty. : ) But I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we act individually as well as in concert.
The NEA, despite the size of its membership rolls and the money behind it, does not seem to be able to generate the same energy.
Thank you, M.E. I thought the whole thing was interesting. It cited a few cases which are normally cited by homeschool advocates. Which may rest on the fact they appeared to have poor representation in their court appointed attorney who didn’t know anything about homeschooling or the organizations involved.
Looks like this case started with a 14-year-old runaway girl. . .see Annette Hall’s latest update here.
And of course every person should choose, weigh what we can and will do for ourselves and what we decide to seek help with, from whatever source. I’m firm and consistent about that position in all matters educational and not.
I’ve never been much of a joiner, especially political interest groups, unions and social alliances for causes. I may be unusually independent in that regard, very DIY. Heck, I am eligible but won’t even join the AARP as an interest group to represent me as a citizen who happens to be over 50 . . .
From what I’ve read, I have little doubt that this particular family has problems. The court was entirely justified in saying they couldn’t homeschool, I think.
But that isn’t exactly what the ruling says. Which complicates things.
But from the link you provided, it looks as if the court found for the parents ultimately. But it is not uncommon to find for the parents but put safety plans in place. Of which mandating a different educational environment in that case wouldn’t be out of line.
Right, the trial court did find for the parents and for their “constitutional right to homeshcool” which is what the appellate court remanded back to the trial court as “an error of law.” Which actually, it was in some respects.
The rest of the appellate opining is indeed troublesome language, but ultimately not binding on this family much less other hsers, IF the legal question about the CA Education Code is resolved as I see it almost certainly must be.
WND is one of those sources which the reader has to take things with huge bucketful (not a grain!) of salt. I wasn’t sure what was actually going on after I read the article on Saturday so that’s why I looked up the full court ruling & posted it to my blog.
I did try to keep my initial blog post factual and save commentary for later posts. Obviously it’s difficult to be completely objective when reporting on something about which I feel strongly, but I tried my best.
Hey, I have no problems with bias. What I have problems with is when someone claims to be objective when they are not. We’d all do better to recognize we have bias, to state them up front and discuss accordingly. : )
You did a nice job on it, I think.
If these abuse allegations have been proven, where is the outcry that the Long children have not been removed from their home?
That is something the courts need to figure out. Substantiated allegations in the past have led to imprisonment and loss of custody. The parents have had them returned after doing certain things and other children have become adults while in the system. I can’t make a case that nothing has been done and if the departments currently responsible for the welfare of the children have determined that it is time for them to be home, then their experience is probably a little more reliable than my interpretation of old court documents.
The state is generally very slow to remove children from the home and that really is the way it should be…we wouldn’t want a lightning fast CPS investigating after a false allegation, for example.
I (and I’m sure most others who have read through the court papers) would support this family not being allowed to homeschool…and some say that is all this court case really says.) I’m no expert on CA law and what the judges did or did not consider, but it seems to go beyond that in some of the language. That, however, looks like it will be satisfied soon with perhaps more clarity for all.