Comments on: Leaving My Church, My Home, My State Because of… http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:58:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Palm Sundays http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-53797 Palm Sundays Wed, 07 May 2008 18:46:25 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-53797 <strong>California Homeschooling Update...</strong> The court ruling by a California Appeals court that made homeschooling illegal in California has been given a new hearing. a ruling concluded parents in the state held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooli..... California Homeschooling Update…

The court ruling by a California Appeals court that made homeschooling illegal in California has been given a new hearing.

a ruling concluded parents in the state held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooli…..

]]> By: Eric http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51623 Eric Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:53:19 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51623 annw's right: the ambiguity of the law is its strength as far as homeschoolers are concerned, which is why HSLDA is trying to have the decision depublished (so that it does not establish legal precedent). Removing the ambiguity of the law would likely introduce a whole host of additional bureaucratic difficulties as far as specifying exactly what a legal private or home school was like -- which in some ways defeats some of the strengths of homeschooling! annw’s right: the ambiguity of the law is its strength as far as homeschoolers are concerned, which is why HSLDA is trying to have the decision depublished (so that it does not establish legal precedent). Removing the ambiguity of the law would likely introduce a whole host of additional bureaucratic difficulties as far as specifying exactly what a legal private or home school was like — which in some ways defeats some of the strengths of homeschooling!

]]> By: annw http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51621 annw Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:58:13 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51621 I signed the petition at HSLDA website. No problem. Didn't plan to move out of state even if homeschooling was illegal. Well, Wellspring can start an ISP for homeschoolers and/ Christian school (Shua, get your teaching credential!) just like Covenant Life church in Md. Most CA homeschoolers who file the private school affidavit like the ambiguous law so they don't have to submit to standardized testing, attendance, etc. I signed the petition at HSLDA website. No problem.
Didn’t plan to move out of state even if homeschooling was illegal.
Well, Wellspring can start an ISP for homeschoolers and/ Christian school (Shua, get your teaching credential!) just like Covenant Life church in Md.
Most CA homeschoolers who file the private school affidavit like the ambiguous law so they don’t have to submit to standardized testing, attendance, etc.

]]> By: archshrk http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51619 archshrk Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:15:03 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51619 Wouldn't it be better to change the law so that homeschooling was permitted. That is, remove the ambiguity of the current law. Wouldn’t it be better to change the law so that homeschooling was permitted. That is, remove the ambiguity of the current law.

]]> By: Eric http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51596 Eric Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:40:28 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51596 I'm not a lawyer, but for at least two reasons, I don't believe this decision will ultimately be sufficient to threaten the viability of homeschooling in this state, so while I think legal response is important, I also think it's important not to overreact, or to overestimate the long-term impact of this ruling at this point. Why? First, if I read the decision correctly, the appeals court erroneously stated that only credentialed teachers are qualified to teach children; but this rule does not even apply to traditional independent/private schools. As the CA Dept of Education website notes, the law only stipulates that private schools employ "persons capable of teaching" - most private school teachers are not certified per se, and this is completely legitimate. By the logic of the court, not only are homeschools illegal; so are all private schools, whether parochial or secular! Secondly, the appeals court also suggested that a homeschool is "clearly" not a private school. But this clarity is exactly what is not present in the law; up to this point, it has been up to local school districts and administrators to approve any particular homeschooling arrangement as being suitable under the private-school exemption to the universal public schooling mandate. And unless the courts are going to begin taking over the function of ruling exactly which schools (home or private) are "clearly" schools and which are not, it seems unlikely that this ruling alone can abolish home schools in California. With these obvious problems in the decision, I find it difficult to believe that the CA Supreme Court would simply stand by and let it be established as precedent. Moreover, I personally think it would be wise for the HLDSA to enlist private schools and their lobby in this fight; the implications clearly go beyond homeschooling because of the carelessness with which this decision was reached and written. One last thing: while this case might reflect an instance of judicial activism, I also note that the ruling was prompted by the plaintiff; the state explicitly asked the court to rule on the constitutionality of home schooling, because (if I read the decision correctly) the public defender had made it a critical piece of the defense for the allegedly abusive parents (a poor strategy, given the ambiguity of CA law on this issue!!). So this appears to me to have been a legal strategy on the plaintiff's part, not simply an arbitrary choice on the part of the appeals court to focus on a tangential issue. Of course, I might be misreading the decision; but if I'm not, then I think it's unhelpful to rant on and on about this being an obvious example of careless judicial activism. A poor judicial decision, yes, but a reason to storm the steps of the Appeals Court, not necessarily. I’m not a lawyer, but for at least two reasons, I don’t believe this decision will ultimately be sufficient to threaten the viability of homeschooling in this state, so while I think legal response is important, I also think it’s important not to overreact, or to overestimate the long-term impact of this ruling at this point. Why?
First, if I read the decision correctly, the appeals court erroneously stated that only credentialed teachers are qualified to teach children; but this rule does not even apply to traditional independent/private schools. As the CA Dept of Education website notes, the law only stipulates that private schools employ “persons capable of teaching” - most private school teachers are not certified per se, and this is completely legitimate. By the logic of the court, not only are homeschools illegal; so are all private schools, whether parochial or secular!
Secondly, the appeals court also suggested that a homeschool is “clearly” not a private school. But this clarity is exactly what is not present in the law; up to this point, it has been up to local school districts and administrators to approve any particular homeschooling arrangement as being suitable under the private-school exemption to the universal public schooling mandate. And unless the courts are going to begin taking over the function of ruling exactly which schools (home or private) are “clearly” schools and which are not, it seems unlikely that this ruling alone can abolish home schools in California.
With these obvious problems in the decision, I find it difficult to believe that the CA Supreme Court would simply stand by and let it be established as precedent. Moreover, I personally think it would be wise for the HLDSA to enlist private schools and their lobby in this fight; the implications clearly go beyond homeschooling because of the carelessness with which this decision was reached and written.
One last thing: while this case might reflect an instance of judicial activism, I also note that the ruling was prompted by the plaintiff; the state explicitly asked the court to rule on the constitutionality of home schooling, because (if I read the decision correctly) the public defender had made it a critical piece of the defense for the allegedly abusive parents (a poor strategy, given the ambiguity of CA law on this issue!!). So this appears to me to have been a legal strategy on the plaintiff’s part, not simply an arbitrary choice on the part of the appeals court to focus on a tangential issue. Of course, I might be misreading the decision; but if I’m not, then I think it’s unhelpful to rant on and on about this being an obvious example of careless judicial activism. A poor judicial decision, yes, but a reason to storm the steps of the Appeals Court, not necessarily.

]]> By: TimK http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51542 TimK Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:12:05 +0000 http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2008/03/07/leaving-my-church-my-home-my-state-because-of/#comment-51542 Sam, I stand with you in this and have signed the petition. Sam, I stand with you in this and have signed the petition.

]]>