Week In Review, March 13, 2008: Parent Choice Overruled by California Court . . .

CSSRC Link

 

3/13/2008 (print version)

Week In Review, March 13, 2008: Parent Choice Overruled by California Court

News of The Week
Let private firms do roadwork
Time for a Texas-style Roundup!
An activist judiciary claims new victims: Home Schoolers
Pilot designs shuttle logo
Kern County looks to expand Jessica’s Law

The recent ruling handed down by the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, ignited a firestorm among the home schooling community, creating uncertainty and raising the possibility of criminal prosecution among students and their families.

The court declared home schooling is not a constitutional right and parents who home school their children require a teaching credential. This ruling, which seems more political than prudent, could criminalize parents who choose to educate their own children at home because of personal beliefs.

In the case, the court determined that the two youngest children of a California family should be put into a public or private school for their well being due to reported abuse by the father. While the court's ruling to remove the children from home schooling may be appropriate in that particular circumstance, it overreaches, and consequently could have unfair and negative impacts on thousands of law-abiding home-schooled families.

Keep in mind; laws that protect children from abuse already exist. This ruling adds nothing to child protection laws but succeeds in raising doubts about the legality of families who home school.

The California State Constitution states that the "Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement."

It is unclear from the language of the State Constitution how a ban on home schooling achieves the goals stated. The fact that students who have been home schooled consistently earn higher scores on standardized tests than do their public school peers rejects the notion that parents need credentials.

This ruling illustrates the latest example of judicial elitism. It shows that judges believe government is better suited to raise children (through regulation and intervention) than parents.

But the bottom line is that parents should be allowed to raise their children in accordance with their conscience. Parents know the needs of their children better than some judge, and do not need the government to watch over their private affairs.

Deciding that parents need a teaching credential to educate their own children is preposterous. Credentialing is used to hold the government accountable to parents in its hiring of teachers, not to hold parents accountable to the government.

Californians should be allowed to make choices regarding their children, not unaccountable judges.

In cases of child abuse, whether a parent uses home schooling or not, the state should take immediate action to protect the children. But the entire institution should not suffer for the actions of a few parents. The vast majority of home-schooled students receive excellent educations, and this ruling could ruin a system that benefits our children.