Joined
·
18,184 Posts
<img alt="" src="http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gif" style="border:0px solid;"><br><br><br>
From USA Today<br><br><br><br><i>A California court ruling that challenges parents' legal right to teach their children at home is angering home schoolers, who hope the state's Supreme Court will overturn the decision. Otherwise, advocates say, thousands of families may be forced to abandon home schooling.</i><br><i>Meanwhile, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to challenge the "outrageous" ruling. He says that if the high court doesn't reverse the appeals court's decision, he'll support home-schooling legislation ensuring parents' rights.</i><br><i>The court on Feb. 28 upheld provisions in the state's education code that say parents must enroll their children in a public or private school. If they're being home schooled, they must be taught by a credentialed teacher or face possible fines or criminal charges. The ruling was a shock to the state's home schoolers, which number as many as 166,000, according to the Pacific Justice Institute, an advocacy group. Many families have long operated through a loose interpretation of the state code.</i><br><br><br><br><i>If enforced, the decision could cut the number of home-schooled children by 90%, says J. Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. "It would drastically reduce or do away with home schooling" in California, he says.</i><br><br><i>A 2003 study by the U.S. Education Department estimated that about 1.1 million students attend school at home, but the current number is likely much higher. Though the ruling doesn't pose a direct threat to laws in other states, Smith says, "it's a dangerous trend when you think about it. … California is an influential state, and (other) states might get an idea."</i><br><i>The case began as a child welfare dispute in Los Angeles County. Phillip Long, a father of eight, faced allegations from one of his children of "physical and emotional mistreatment," according to court documents. While taught at home by their high school-educated mother, the children were registered at the private Sunland Christian School, which periodically monitored their progress but didn't actually instruct the children. Many California home schoolers follow such an arrangement, officials and advocates say.</i><br><i>Attorneys appointed to represent two of the family's youngest children asked a juvenile court to require that the pair, ages 7 and 9, attend school outside the home so adults could monitor them for signs of abuse.</i><br><i>"Our concern was the kids' safety," says Leslie Heimov of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles. "There's a big difference between a social worker visiting once a month and (what) a teacher might be able to see on a daily basis."</i><br><i>A judge rejected that request, so attorneys appealed to the higher court, which ruled on Feb. 28 that enrollment in Sunland was a "ruse" that allowed the children to be taught at home "by a non-credentialed parent."</i><br><i>The appeals court ruled that the arrangement with Sunland was inadequate because the school "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education." It also ruled that Long and his wife couldn't claim to be home schooling their children for religious reasons. They had cited a 1972 case involving Amish families, but the court said that case allowed families to home school based not on "personal preferences," but on "a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community separate and apart from the world and worldly influence."</i><br><i>Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus calls the ruling "an extreme position," adding, "We're confident the California State Supreme Court will not agree with (it)."</i><br><i>Schwarzenegger said in a statement Friday: "Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children. … This outrageous ruling must be overturned, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then as elected officials, we will."</i>
From USA Today<br><br><br><br><i>A California court ruling that challenges parents' legal right to teach their children at home is angering home schoolers, who hope the state's Supreme Court will overturn the decision. Otherwise, advocates say, thousands of families may be forced to abandon home schooling.</i><br><i>Meanwhile, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to challenge the "outrageous" ruling. He says that if the high court doesn't reverse the appeals court's decision, he'll support home-schooling legislation ensuring parents' rights.</i><br><i>The court on Feb. 28 upheld provisions in the state's education code that say parents must enroll their children in a public or private school. If they're being home schooled, they must be taught by a credentialed teacher or face possible fines or criminal charges. The ruling was a shock to the state's home schoolers, which number as many as 166,000, according to the Pacific Justice Institute, an advocacy group. Many families have long operated through a loose interpretation of the state code.</i><br><br><br><br><i>If enforced, the decision could cut the number of home-schooled children by 90%, says J. Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. "It would drastically reduce or do away with home schooling" in California, he says.</i><br><br><i>A 2003 study by the U.S. Education Department estimated that about 1.1 million students attend school at home, but the current number is likely much higher. Though the ruling doesn't pose a direct threat to laws in other states, Smith says, "it's a dangerous trend when you think about it. … California is an influential state, and (other) states might get an idea."</i><br><i>The case began as a child welfare dispute in Los Angeles County. Phillip Long, a father of eight, faced allegations from one of his children of "physical and emotional mistreatment," according to court documents. While taught at home by their high school-educated mother, the children were registered at the private Sunland Christian School, which periodically monitored their progress but didn't actually instruct the children. Many California home schoolers follow such an arrangement, officials and advocates say.</i><br><i>Attorneys appointed to represent two of the family's youngest children asked a juvenile court to require that the pair, ages 7 and 9, attend school outside the home so adults could monitor them for signs of abuse.</i><br><i>"Our concern was the kids' safety," says Leslie Heimov of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles. "There's a big difference between a social worker visiting once a month and (what) a teacher might be able to see on a daily basis."</i><br><i>A judge rejected that request, so attorneys appealed to the higher court, which ruled on Feb. 28 that enrollment in Sunland was a "ruse" that allowed the children to be taught at home "by a non-credentialed parent."</i><br><i>The appeals court ruled that the arrangement with Sunland was inadequate because the school "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education." It also ruled that Long and his wife couldn't claim to be home schooling their children for religious reasons. They had cited a 1972 case involving Amish families, but the court said that case allowed families to home school based not on "personal preferences," but on "a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community separate and apart from the world and worldly influence."</i><br><i>Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus calls the ruling "an extreme position," adding, "We're confident the California State Supreme Court will not agree with (it)."</i><br><i>Schwarzenegger said in a statement Friday: "Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children. … This outrageous ruling must be overturned, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then as elected officials, we will."</i>
