California Court: No Right to Homeschool
As someone who has been warning my fellow libertarians for some time now about not being too absolutist in insisting that there is an unlimited right of parents to homeschool their children, I felt an especial sense of Whoa! upon hearing that an intermediate appeals court in California held that there is no right whatsoever to home school and that non-credentialed homeschooling can even be prosecuted as a criminal act:
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.
…
“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.” Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.
…
The ruling was applauded by a director for the state’s largest teachers union.
I have no doubt of that last sentence.
It is a fine line (or a massive chasm, depending on your point of view) between insisting, as I do, that there is no right to badly homeschool your child and this court’s ruling that there is no right to homeschool whatsoever. Regardless, I do not think it is a line that can be crossed.
The authority to regulate homeschooling derives from the obligation of the government to protect the incompetent — in this case minor children. To homeschool poorly is simply a variation of child neglect — malnutrition of the mind, if you will. Indeed, this particular court case began not as a homeschooling charge but as a physical abuse complaint.
But child neglect, like any other offense against another person, should have to be proven on a case-by-case basis. To adopt a bright-line rule that any homeschooling is “bad” homeschooling is arbitrary, irrational — and likely an unconstitutional violation of due process. Even in the knowledge that some homeschooling will be bad homeschooling, the state should be required to demonstrate that a particular parent is failing to properly homeschool a particular child, just as it should be required to demonstrate that a particular parent is neglecting or abusing a particular child.*
(Indeed, the court addressed this question and preposterously dismissed it: “It is unreasonably difficult and expensive for a state to supervise parents who instruct children in their homes.” Facts to support that outlandish, sweeping and conclusory assertion: none.)
The only three explanations for a bright-line rule criminalizing all non-credentialed homeschooling are: (a) intellectual laziness by legislators and judges; (b) budgetary stinginess by the government, or (c) pandering to teacher unions. But not “the best interests of the child.” That is the one factor that ought to trump all else and demand a (rebuttable) presumption of propriety regarding homeschooling.
How sad that it does not.
The case is In re Rachel L., No. JD00773 (Ct.App.Cal., 28 February 2008) (PDF – 18 pages) More thoughts at Cato@Liberty South Puget Sound, QandO.
—
*Regarding this “particular parent failing to properly homeschool this particular child,” the record should reflect that it was indeed a case of radical fundamentalist Christians trying to provide a typical (i.e., redacted, inadequate and incorrect) “Bible-based” pseudo-education of the kind I have warned about. Indeed, it was the children themselves who sued to be removed from their abusive (but “Christian”) parents and thereby receive a bona fide education (with fewer beatings in the process).
Similar Posts:
- Homeschooling and Pierce as Sword Rather than Shield
- Homeschooling is a Double-Edged Sword
- Why Does Mitt Romney Hate Utah?
- Should Public Education be “A La Carte”?
- Florida Supreme Court Nixes Vouchers
Filed under: Children v. Parents; Homeschooling
What am I missing here, Kip. I interpret the ruling as say that any homeschooling that does not meet a standard established by the state is bad, not any homeschooling. That standard being determined determined by accrediation and testing.
[Kip replies: What you're missing is the word "non-credentialed," which I used throughout the post.]
Aren't child actors home-schooled? I guess this means all movie production with kids will take place in Vancouver.
Kip, do you think the 'right' of the state to supervise education supercedes the rights parents to educate their kids, and the kids' rights to control their education?
[Kip replies: States do not have rights; they have powers -- powers that they can and do abuse. I do not deny this. It is irrelevant in this context.
It has been said that libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is criticized for not being able to resolve the most extreme cases. I think this is that.
There is no more right to allow your child to become an illiterate than there is a right to malnourish your child. The fact that reasonable libertarians might disagree on the best definition of "illiterate" does not refute the underlying thesis.]
Dave & Jack: The ruling says that if you're not an accredited instructor (teaching degree or equiv), then it's illegal.
If the parent (or in the case of child actors) tutor has a cert in education, then it's legal.
Personally, I think it's BS. The rule should be that if your kid doesn't/can't pass tests for his grade level, then no home school.
Thanks for replying, Kip.
I agree with you on each of your points, but I do not believe the apparatus of the state is the appropriate mechanism to enforce schooling standards, especially in the home.
What are they asking for, when they ask a homeschooling teacher to be "certified"?
They are asking this parent to attend college classes–some might be in the evening, some might not. How do you teach your child while physically absent from this child?
How do you maintain this certification? Well, you would need to take more courses approved by the state for certification. Maybe these would all be offered in the evening, since they cater to teachers who are working during the day.
HOWEVER–they also require that you spend a certain amount of time WORKING as a paid employee within the education system, from what I read.
How does THIS reconcile with homeschooling? It doesn't.
Some thoughts I have:
California schools cannot possibly want another 100,000 plus students right now. They aren't able to handle the ones they have. Education is being cut within the state, and the public obviously does not want to pay more for more students. Of course, I do wonder why the highest paid teachers in the nation are manning schools ranking 49th…not blaming teachers, personally, but something isn't working well in California schools!
So, more thoughts: I know that five years ago or so, Delaine Easten was trying to stop homeschooling, saying it was illegal. She was shut down and things have been seemingly quiet… Is this the next step in the campaign to reaquire the education monopoly that has been lost in recent years by the NEA? Is this Delaine Easten type people's Plan B to make homeschooling illegal down the road? Hitler style?
Still: Right now California has almost essentially no requirements for homeschooling. Its so odd in a state that has so much red tape otherwise, and surprised me when I moved here seven years ago. I know HSLDA doesn't want any regulations–perhaps when removing freedoms, it helps to have some kind of legislation to start from in the legal game, I'm sure. Perhaps that is what stymied Delaine Easten last time and thus creating a panic and then Gov S. putting in some regulations that can be eroded later is the goal…
However, I'm not sure there should be zero oversight, as loss of freedom most often occurs when egregious abuse of that freedom occurs. Despite the risks of playing the legal game that the NEA has proven so adept at…
Kip, you have a "right" to think what you think. I also have a right to think what I think. Don't tell me that the public schools arent' harming children. I can think of many things that "harm" children in the public school system as well. Most of the children who are homeschooled do not remain illiterate. At times, they are falling behind, and that is a problem. But that can be dealt with in many ways, you do not have to make it illegal to homeschool. That is kind of over stepping the supposed "rights" in the constitution. I think we need to send people to special schools just to interpret the constitution correctly. I will become a certified tutor so that I can teach my own children, thank you very much. If they wish to go to school, I think I will let them. Thanks for allowing parent to be parents. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I was homeschooled. I graduated early and I am at a credited four-year college. I am doing just fine! There's one more statistic of a successful homeschooled student. Oh, I hope that I spelled my words correctly and I'm sorry about the long paragraph. My mother "neglected" me. Heck, where is this world going. You are write about states. They don't have "rights", they have power. That is all the government is after these days, now isn't it? I don't think the Constitution justifies that!