|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
California ruling - 3/5/2008 2:49:46 PM
|
|
|
shadowspring
Posts: 1622
Joined: 5/27/2006
Status: offline
|
From an e-mail I just opened from Home School Legal Defense Association:
quote:
As many of you know, the Second Appellate District Court of 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 two decisions reached in the 1950s 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
Whole story HERE
Comments?
_____________________________
"Blessed is the man...whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law meditates day and night. He will be like a tree planted by rivers of water..." from Psalm 1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 3:09:16 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7986
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: online
|
I have not read the ruling, but I kept waking up last night coughing and praying for CA. That place is a wreck. First they tell parents that public school children need to be taught that perversion is a good thing and then they tell these parents that they cannot remove their children from such teaching to educate them at home. How wicked is that!
_____________________________
My husband and I have a motto:
We are the leader. We are one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 3:22:56 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cynthia
I have not read the ruling, but I kept waking up last night coughing and praying for CA. That place is a wreck. First they tell parents that public school children need to be taught that perversion is a good thing and then they tell these parents that they cannot remove their children from such teaching to educate them at home. How wicked is that!
Cal Thomas had an interesting column regarding the mess in California's public schools.
The right to Home School is among the most important rights that any parent has because it is the primary defense against indoctrination of all stripes... and, they know it. If test scores showed that Home Schooled children were way below those of public school systems they MIGHT have a bit of an argument. But, so far, those with teaching certificates seem to be failing more children than parents without them.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 3:24:54 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7986
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Cal Thomas had an interesting column regarding the mess in California's public schools.
The right to Home School is among the most important rights that any parent has because it is the primary defense against indoctrination of all stripes... and, they know it. If test scores showed that Home Schooled children were way below those of public school systems they MIGHT have a bit of an argument. But, so far, those with teaching certificates seem to be failing more children than parents without them.
I'll have to read that article.
You are right. It interfers with freedom of religion. I find this trend to be terribly disturbing.
_____________________________
My husband and I have a motto:
We are the leader. We are one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 3:41:08 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7986
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: online
|
Excellent article. I particularly like this quote, quote:
"If you're going to send your kids to Caesar, you're going to get Romans back."
_____________________________
My husband and I have a motto:
We are the leader. We are one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 3:55:07 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shadowspring
From an e-mail I just opened from Home School Legal Defense Association:
quote:
As many of you know, the Second Appellate District Court of 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 two decisions reached in the 1950s 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
Whole story HERE
Comments?
Reading the ruling is scary.
One of the claims by the court is that it doesn't even matter if the education a child might get at school is substandard to the one they get at home. In other words, as long as the state is in control of your children, they can be as bad at educating as they like and you STILL have no recourse to withdraw your child and home school them. That is simply outrageous.
I can't think of a greater road to tyranny than forcibly dumbing down our children. I can tell you this. Thomas Jefferson would never have put up with that nonsense.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 9:35:47 PM
|
|
|
sen10tious
Posts: 349
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
I can't think of a greater road to tyranny than forcibly dumbing down our children. I can tell you this. Thomas Jefferson would never have put up with that nonsense.
I'm not so sure that argument is going to be understood in California… they might wonder what Sally Hemings has to do with it… seeing as how that's what Jefferson is known for in revisionist history.
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 9:55:34 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7986
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: online
|
I am reading the opinion of the court. Basically they want the children out of the home during the day to be educated, not just these children, but all children.
Here's a link to Pacific Justice Institute which will be appealing this case to the CA Supreme Court.
I am amazed at how overnight things can change so radically.
Apparently the State of California believes it owns the people, not the other way around.
_____________________________
My husband and I have a motto:
We are the leader. We are one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 10:02:30 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6284
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
Does their ruling actually change everything for every family immediately? I mean, will the thousands of CA homeschooling families have to cease homeschooling this week? Or are they safe while it's in appeals, or due to lack of enforcement?
Here in WA, as Cynthia knows, many families homeschooled in hiding until they could get the laws to be favorable to HSing.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/5/2008 10:45:22 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7986
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jenny-Fair
Does their ruling actually change everything for every family immediately? I mean, will the thousands of CA homeschooling families have to cease homeschooling this week? Or are they safe while it's in appeals, or due to lack of enforcement?
Here in WA, as Cynthia knows, many families homeschooled in hiding until they could get the laws to be favorable to HSing.
I'm not sure, but it looks like home schooling is currently illegal in the State of California. I read part of the ruling, but got so mad I had to quit reading.
People cannot go into hiding when their names, addressess, etc. are in the government system. I'm not sure what we would do if we lived in CA. Probably get a group of people together and get a good constitutional lawyer. This should be of concern for all parents, not just home educators.
_____________________________
My husband and I have a motto:
We are the leader. We are one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/6/2008 12:12:00 AM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6284
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
I agree, it should concern everyone, because of basic rights.
I have done a couple of web searches and it looks like there is no expectation of an immediate end to HSing in CA but certainly, if the appeal is not won there will be a problem.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/6/2008 8:25:08 AM
|
|
|
sen10tious
Posts: 349
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
It is no surprised that the respondent is the Los Angeles Department of Family and Children Services. All of these departments across the country are set up and run on policies that are fixated on humanism and rooted in social evolution.
Why did they petition the court to have only two of the eight children put in public school? (Notice how they even divided the family on this!) To endure a better education? No, of course not. The stated reasons were: 1. so the children could interact with people outside the family, 2. so "people" could provide "help" if something is amiss in the children’s lives (and you know the sort of "help" those "people" who are driven by the devil provide), and 3. so the children "could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' “cloistered” setting."
In that latter one, the Department of Family and Children Services has already been wildly successful. I guarantee you these children are now developing an emotionally broader range of fear, confusion, urges to retaliate, and desires to see their persecutors annihilated than ever before. None of that really matters in a court decision though. These kids are now chattel of the state.
Two things that stood out when I read the filing of 2/28/08:
* An underlying push for "credentials" is evident. I think the ubiquitous "they" will ask that all teachers be certified, knowing full well that it will cause a lot of torment and anguish. And after they have deliberately riled up the home educators, "they" will ever-so-benevolently* propose a peaceful compromise so that all home schooling parents must take a class and pass a test to be an approved and state licensed home schooler.
* The second thing is that "nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical (hostile or opposed) to the public welfare." That means that in addition to keeping files on the parents, they also plan to control the curriculum. (The quote came from Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a case that HSLDA has often used almost as a cornerstone of their arguments. Now its small concessions are being blasted against those arguments.)
This is what "they" want: compulsory attendance at institutions which provide prescribed hours of instruction, employing only teachers of specified training, and covering their prescribed subjects of instruction.
California law is going to have to be changed.
* "ever-so-benevolently" was sarcasm.
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/6/2008 8:40:59 AM
|
|
|
Sunnymom
Posts: 1860
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
The problem with this case is that the family in question has had problems for going on 20 years. There have been accusations of beatings and molestation by a family friend. When officials searched the house, they found over 60 guns (which is not a bad thing necessarily) but many were easily accessible, along with the ammunition., which is a reason for alarm when the family has already experienced some violence.
Another problem is that it is a case of he said/she said. One daughter is making most of the accusations, and the other kids are not backing her up. She has run away, and began self-mutilating- so regardless of the veracity of the accusations, that little girl needs help.
The ruling is weird, because if the children are in danger at home, what does sending them to school do, except put them at risk for harm from teachers and students instead of their parents? Why attempt to overhaul existing laws regarding education to answer a specific case?
There are ALOT of blogs out there discussing this case, linking to court docs and news stories. Several groups in CA, as well as the HSLDA are now involved in straightening this out. The CA HSers that I have emailed are not really worried at this point. Their thinking is that one court case cannot overturn existing laws- it just doesn't work that way.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/6/2008 8:56:12 AM
|
|
|
amybreit
Posts: 785
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
**note to self...don't move to CA That is just what I was thinking Sarah! We used to live there, but it was pre kids. Luckily, we're at the point where IF dh got orders there, he could put in his retirement paperwork!
IF their was abuse going on in this home, why were the children not removed from the home? Are they saying that it's OK for kids to live with abuse as long as they don't have to be home all day? I think they could find no basis for abuse, so decided to take another tactic to persecute these parents.
quote:
We believe that the court made a mistake when it relied on two decisions reached in the 1950s in order to show that homeschooling is not a legal option. Couldn't they find any more recent rulings to rely on (or is it just that they couldn't find any more recent rulings that said what they wanted them to say?!)!
I LOVE this quote from the actual ruling:
quote:
A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare REALLY???
And then there's this from one of the cases they site:quote:
teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition Have they watched the news lately?
and this:quote:
certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare Have they checked their own state's curriculum lately?
Here's another kicker:quote:
Turner (that's one of the cases cited) also held that the subject former statutes were neither arbitraty nor unreasonable when they required that teachers in private full-time day schools only be "persons capable of teaching" and did not have to hold a valid teaching credential for the grade being taught, but did require that a home tutor hold such a credential Can anyone say double standard?
And quote:
teachers in private schools would be directly supervised by the persons who run the schools, and such persons would have an interst in maintaing the required standard of insturction by competent teachers so that the schools would continue to qualify for the private full-time day school exmeption WHAT? Are they saying the only reason private schools make sure their instruction is competent is to maintain their exemption? Who cares if the kids are actually learning huh? AND IMHO, this implies that PARENTS Aren't concerned with the standard of instruction their children receive! So sad that they actually believe this - in my experience, homeschooling parents are MOST concerned that their children are receiving a good education!! Also, it appears that this family was under something like an "umbrella school", so wouldn't "the persons who run that school" have an interest in maintaing the standard, so they wouldn't lose their exemption?
Here's a truly scary quote:quote:
the juvenile court has authority to limit a parent's control over a dependent child, including a parent's right to make educational decisions for a child, so long as the limitations do not exceed what is necessary to protect the child
And apparently IF you're Amish & have centuries of tradition, you can be exempt. But just regular Christians don't qualify.
I read it all (if you can't tell from all the quotes & the length of my post  ) and all I can say is we need to pray for California & all the homeschoolers there!
_____________________________
<------ Staci & Stoli, our k9 kids!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: California ruling - 3/6/2008 12:59:00 PM
|
|
|
Sunnymom
Posts: 1860
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Here is a link to a related case against these parents.
This makes the whole situation very complicated, and even though the ruling makes statements that are out of line with CA law, this family is not being 'persecuted' for their religious beliefs or their homeschooling status. The abuse may be unsubstantiated, but I have yet to read anything that shows whether or not that has been determined. Apparently the court feels that this family needs monitoring, which sideswipes any home education efforts.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
