First, before everyone gets their panties in a twist…..California is NOT changing their laws – - they are UPHOLDING them - – BIG DIFFERENCE!!! Second, the CHILDREN’S LAWYER (or GAL) was requesting that the CHILDREN go to public school (as it would be in THEIR best interest). That is the JOB of the Guardian Ad Lithum (GAL), in cases that involve children in courts.Third, the first set of judges stated that they would NOT require homeschooling BECAUSE of the parent’s RIGHT to homeschool. The CHILDREN’S GAL appealed to the CA Supreme Court…..as a matter of LEGAL ERROR. (BTW, you can not just appeal at whim. It must fall within TWO categries…..legal error is one of them.)Fourth, a judge CAN order a child to compulsory public school attendance- – particularly if the child is in the state’s custody. For example, in the state of Kansas, it is (of course) legal to homeschool; however, my oldest daughter is COURT ORDERED to public school and MUST attend EVERY DAY! That does NOT make it illegal to homeschool in KS – - it only makes it illegal for HER to homeschool. (At this time.) Even with one child COURT ORDERED to attend public school; I am exercising my right to homeschool my youngest child.
Fifth, if I understand, the ruling, it states: “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.”
The key word above is: unless. And the key phrase is one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance.
Here is “One of the other few statutory exemptions”:
Qualify as a Private School by filing an annual affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction between October 1 and 15.
If you are interested in all the other statutory exemptions, you can find them HERE and HERE.
Perhaps I am stupid….but, I do NOT see where the judge(s) outlawed homeschooling in CA. As a matter of fact, they clearly upheld homeschooling “as one of the few statutory exemptions.”
If you are interested in reading the actual court documents that discusses the barest bones of the CA family and the CA ruling, click: Court Documents
[...] enthusiastic supporter & commenter. Thanks Heidi! I’m off to read your commentary on the California ruling as soon as I’m done with this. It seems to take a very balanced look at the issue, compared [...]
All the outrage is silly. You are correct, the judge said ‘unless…’ There is no constitutional right to homeschooling. CA could take away the right, but they have not and the judge did not. The judge stated that the couple did not follow the statute that allows for homeschooling. The statute does not require a parent to have a teaching degree. Because the parents didn’t follow the statute, but instead argued that they could just teach in and of itself, the judge spent the vast majority of the opinion addressing and dismissing the bad argument. Any parent with half a brain can follow the statute and homeschool and nothing that the judge said contradicts this. The press has completely missed this and even drug the mayor into the confusion. I’m all for homeschooling and everything the judge said was legally accurate.
You dont know what your talking about. The judges said that the law does not allow parents to educate theit children in their home unless they are credentialed. Go back and read page 7, 8, And 9. Phillip Long . marylong8@sbcglobal.net
Actually, in pages 7 through 11, the court is discussing previous legal opinion that denies the parent’s claims and supports the ruling set forth in pages 17 and 18.
This is also a ruling that is specific to this case – - as you can see throughout the court documents; but, specifically on pages 17 and 18 et. al. “Given the history of this family, which we need not discuss here….”
You are correct when you assert that I do not personally know the family or the specifics of the other parts of this case (as the documents have not been published – - and as I understand is a juvenile issue); therefore, I can only argue (or try to calm the hysteria) with the information that I DO have.
If you have more specific information to share, please feel free to do so.