Homeschooling in California

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders homeschoolers into government education
Court: Family's religious beliefs 'no evidence' of 1st Amendment violation
Posted: February 29, 2008 3:24 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

The ruling came in a case brought against Jonathan and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.

"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, -'" the court said in the case. "We agree … '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.'"

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."

"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.

The father, Jonathan Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId=55808 which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.

"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.

"When they are much more mature, they can deal with the se issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.

"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said.

A spokesman for the http://www.hslda.org Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision. "It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.

Randy Thomasson, of http://www.savecalifornia.com Campaign for Children and Families, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children.

"Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.

"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."

"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents."

A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by http://www.pheofca.org Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.

The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.

The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

A number of groups already have assembled in California under the http://www.rescueyourchild.org Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.

It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controll –ed schools," said Thomasson.

Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.

The http://www.DiscoverChristianSchools.com Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 55808 WND reported leaders of the campaign called http://www.Californ iaexodus. org California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.

The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp? http: //www.capitolres ource.org/web Capitol Resource Institute.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.

“The law in California has not changed. This is the opinion of one court. CHN strongly believes this opinion is incorrect, and homeschooling by using one of the alternatives to public school currently available under California law remains legal. The implications of this ruling and possible actions are currently being discussed by CHN, along with HSC, CHEA, Family Protection Ministry and HSLDA.”

On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles handed down a very bad decision regarding a case involving a homeschool family.

The opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California. HSLDA strongly disputes this interpretation of California law. We believe that the court made a mistake when it relied on a decision from 1953 in order to show that homeschooling is not a legal option.

If the opinion is followed then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four year college education program just to teach their own children.

California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home.

In response, HSLDA believes that the best course of action is to petition the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion. If the opinion is depublished then this ruling can not be used against every homeschooling family in California.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised today to ensure that parents have the right to homeschool their children, after a state appeals court ruling severely restricted the practice in California.

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," the governor said in a statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."

An estimated 166,000 children are homeschooled across the state. The ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said all children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school or be tutored at home by a credentialed teacher.
There is no specific allowance in state law for homeschooling, the court said.

Many homeschooling parents register as a private school with the state, a status that does not require credentialed teachers. Then they enroll their own children in their school.
The court ruling, issued Feb. 28, appears to restrict such practices, setting a precedent that could lead to parents being prosecution for truancy.

I would really like your opinion of Dobson's interview today. He had five or six different people, I think two attorneys, and they said the opposite of what you just said. He said that the problem with this court is that they didn't not restrict the decision to just this family, but to everyone in California. That is why they want everyone to sign the petition on the HSLDA site, they are asking for them to overturn the decision and restrict it to just this family. They said it does affect the law, and it makes it illegal to homeschool, but that they doubt it would be enforced until it went to a higher (?) court. They also said that they thought it would be overturned because the first case was purposefully done in secret, and now that the "nation" is finding out it will be fought with vengeance. But they said that it was very important that it is fought, because if it isn't overturned the implications will be for everyone . . . as California goes, there goes the nation. Now, I realize that these are "my" ears listening, and maybe I totally misunderstood what they were saying, so *please* listen and let me know what you think. Lydia

My DH heard on the radio this morning that legislation has been passed in CA, requiring homeschoolers to be certified teachers. Is this TRUE???!! Lisa in Oregon.

    California home-schoolers have been deeply rattled by a state appeals court ruling that says children whose parents don't send them to public or private schools must be taught by credentialed tutors.
    Parents who don't comply can be criminally prosecuted, said Judge H. Walter Croskey in an opinion issued by the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
    "It's shocking," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative law firm that has agreed to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. "This is without question the greatest affront to the rights of parents witnessed so far in the state of California."

    State Department of Education officials say they won't be sure of the ruling's meaning or its significance until the department's legal team has a chance to vet it.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said only that he supports parental choice while also supporting high quality standards, according to a department spokeswoman.
    In a statement released Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the ruling "outrageous" and said, "If the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."
    Until now, home-schoolers generally have met one of three requirements: file an affidavit establishing their home as a private school, register their children in a recognized independent study program or hire a credentialed tutor.
    "(The ruling) has the potential to really radically affect people's options in terms of what they want to do with their own children," said Pia Wong, associate dean of Sacramento State's College of Education. "My jaw dropped when I heard the news."
Reaction to the Feb. 28 ruling has been slow to build.
    On Friday, about a dozen home-schoolers picketed outside the Department of Education building in Sacramento.
"(Parents) are the most qualified (to teach children) because you know them best. You raised them up," said Viktor Choban of Citrus Heights, who joined the picket line. "How can they say you need a credential if your best credentials are God-given credentials and years spent with the children?"
Choban, 24, helps his father, Valeriy, home-school younger children in the family. They moved from Ukraine 10 years ago and expected less government control in American education than what they encountered in their home country, Valeriy Choban said.

    "I thought we'd have more freedom here to teach God's truth," he said.
Dacus predicted that, if the ruling sticks, many families would "without a doubt leave the state, if that means maintaining their freedom."
    Just how many California families are affected by the court ruling is unclear. Dacus offered what he described as a conservative estimate of 166,000 home-schooled students statewide.
    The state Education Department has no clear way of tracking home-schooling. Officials there estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 students are educated at home and said the number is growing.
    Some families operate completely off the grid, either as a total rejection of the system or, Dacus said, for fear of retaliation in the event of a backlash against home-schooling.
In the case of Phillip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles-area couple at the center of the Feb. 28 ruling, their children were enrolled in the private Sunland Christian School. Most of the education, however, occurred at home.
    Repeatedly, the couple were reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for, among other charges, suspicion of child abuse. A lawyer representing two of the children filed suit, asking that the children be put in public or private school where other adults could monitor the children's safety.
    Last month, a three-judge panel overturned the trial court's refusal to have the children ordered into a traditional school setting.
    Judge Croskey wrote that under the state's Education Code, "parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children."
    Leslie Buchanan, a 36-year-old mother of four in the tiny Placer County town of Alta, is president of the HomeSchool Association of California. She said Friday that she is not advising her members to change their lifestyle – nor does she plan to stop home-schooling her three school-age children. "I know that with legal issues, things take time," she said. "There's no certainty right now that this ruling is going to stick." Buchanan acknowledged, however, that the mounting buzz around the ruling has shaken her level of comfort.
"When everybody around you is crying fire, you tend to get a little nervous," she said.
Several educators welcomed the ruling's emphasis on the value of a teaching credential. Much work and preparation goes into earning a credential, they said, and much benefit to students comes of it.
"You don't just get it just because you have children," said Wong, of Sacramento State.
    Harold Levine, dean of the School of Education at the University of California, Davis, said very few parents are equipped with the same skills and expertise as a credentialed teacher. "Does that make them good or bad teachers?" he asked. "It probably varies."
    Regardless, Levine and Wong both said the home-schooling movement has grown in strength and numbers, and is not to be ignored.
"(It) is such a deeply felt, passionate movement by parents that I think as a society we don't want to ignore that and its potential," Levine said. "At the same time, we don't want to devalue the work that teachers do at our schools that are fully credentialed." Kim Minugh, (916) 321-1038.

As I wrote previously and was refuted and questioned - I still continue to state that at this time (March 9, 2008) the homeschool law in California has not changed. You can and should continue to teach your children in the same way you have in the past.

Will it change in the future – quite possibly. California has functioned without a law that defines homeschooling and now because of these events we will very likely be in for many days or years of uncertainty before a decision is made and legislature is voted on. My close friend Kathleen Moore Kordenbrock wrote an article about this very topic and she has more to say about the current situation below.

How we handle this will determine so much. There are so many sides to this issue, so many opinions, and so many fears but you know what? “God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, love and a strong mind.” 2 Timothy 1:7

What kind of a representation of homeschool are we going to make during the upcoming months? - Out of control, demanding "our rights", arrogant, angry, defiant? Or Christlike, peaceful, in-control, working together?

Should we stand up for our God-given rights, defend the freedoms of our country? Of course we should, all the time remembering who we represent - Jesus Christ!

We need to choose to remember that God is in control of this situation and our lives as SDA homeschoolers. We know that our freedoms will eventually be taken away and that these events will precede the second coming of Jesus Christ. We are living in the last days! How exciting is that?

As I read Judy Shewmake’s posts on the AHE web site regarding the recent court decision in a California county, all I could say was “Praise the Lord!” How blessed we are to have all this information, not to mention the many support organizations and the presently more homeschool-friendly public.

I understand that this situation is worrying many homeschool parents in California, but let’s stop and think:

First, California law has not changed. The ruling of the Second District Court of Appeal is binding only within their jurisdiction (Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara). Also for more than 25 years homeschoolers have complied to the best of their ability by filing a PSA or enrolling with a private or public school home education program and have set something of a precedent. (See California Needs a GOOD Homeschool Law)

Second, many do not realize that California does not have a law specifically addressing homeschooling, which in my opinion we’ve needed for a long time. So we might do well to welcome this opportunity rather than fear it! Homeschooling is much less controversial and far more socially acceptable than it was a couple of decades ago. It may well be that in California homeschooling’s time has come!

Third, I would like to echo the opinion of my dear friend and fellow homeschooling pioneer Judy Shewmake: If indeed this opportunity presents itself, we believe that homeschoolers must approach it wisely. All those interested in preserving this freedom must work together in a reasonable and deliberate way to ensure that California enacts the best possible homeschool law. And I also hope that Christian homeschoolers will be at the forefront—leading and wrapping this campaign in prayer!

9. Assemblyman Joel Anderson Introduces Homeschool Resolution in CA Legislature

Assemblyman Joel Anderson Introduces Homeschool Resolution in CA Legislature

Shockwaves continue you to reverberate throughout the country after last week's unbelievable Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District ruling that attacked parents' rights to homeschool in California. In response to the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarznegger firmly declared his belief that homeschooling should remain legal by stating, "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."

CRFI ally Assemblyman Joel Anderson has taken the first step in protecting parents' rights to home school by introducing a concurrent resolution in the Assembly, calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision. The text of the resolution is below. As we move forward with our defense of homeschooling, it is imperative that we make our voices heard.

Every recipient of this alert should call their assemblyman and senator and urge them to become a co-sponsor of Assemblyman Anderson's homsechool resolution.

Please take just a few moments today to call your legislators and urge them to support parental rights and home education by co-sponsoring this important resolution.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution

WHEREAS, Some thirty years of experience with the modern homeschooling movement in California demonstrates that home school graduates take up responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of Colleges and Universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large; and

WHEREAS, Homeschooling by California families with diverse backgrounds has historically given children a quality education through proven, independent approaches that nurture valuable family bonds and support successful student development; and

WHEREAS, private homeschooling has a long and rich history in the State of California, currently estimated as involving 200,000 students in the State of California, and 2,000,000 students nationwide; and

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska); and

WHEREAS, On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal; and

WHEREAS, This misguided interpretation denies California parents' primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and manner of their own children's education; and

WHEREAS, The fair opportunity of California families to educate their children should not be undermined; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, that the Legislature hereby calls upon the California Supreme Court to reverse the opinion.

RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

Contact Your Legislator

Find Your Legislator

Home Schooling Found Unlawful by California Court of Appeal
City: Los Angeles, CA
In a stunning decision affecting thousands of families in California, the California Court of Appeal has issued an opinion finding no legal right to home school. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] 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," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey whose opinion was joined by the other two members of the appellate panel. The opinion was issued February 28, 2008, in a case titled In re Rachel L., which reversed a Superior Court Judge, Stephen Marpet, who found that "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home." The parents of Rachel L. enrolled her in Sunland Christian School, a private home schooling program. In his opinion, Croskey, 75, described what he called the "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent." Despite this statement by the Court, it should be noted that Sunland Christian School has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than twenty years. "We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," said Terry Neven, the president of the school. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of home schooling families are preserved," he stated further. In a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education," the Court said that "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." "The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking. It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools," stated Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute "If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he continued. ______________________________________________________________________________________ The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600 Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org