Home Schooling Still Legal in California
The Ace of Spades HQ notes:
The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.
Gabriel Malor explains:
...generally, parents have three options for educating their kids in California: (1) public school; (2) private school; or (3) credentialed tutor. This is not as bad for homeschoolers as it looks. To be a private school in California, all the parent has to do is be "capable of teaching" the required subjects in the English language and offer instruction in the same "branches of study" required to be taught in the public schools. They also have to keep a register of enrollment at their "school" and a record of attendance. Once a year they have to file an affidavit with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with things like their names and address, the names of the students and their addresses, a criminal background check (since we don't want unsupervised felons teaching kids), and their attendance register. That's it.In the Longs' case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a "valid charter school" and that the school was supervising the mothers' instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court's opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn't meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren't, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to "enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school." It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.
Read the whole thing.
[HT: John Mark Reynolds]




Comments
Ok.... if this is true, how come even the HSLDA is all fired up about the situation? And if this is true, most of the news outlets are reporting it incorrectly, too.
Posted by: Kimberly | March 11, 2008 01:17 AM
Kimberly,
I'm not sure, but:
1. Sometimes when one group overreacts, others follow suit (as when a caravan of cars gets lost on the way to a party).
2. Groups like the HSLDA have a vested interest in anticipating potential home schooling restrictions. Even if my post is accurate, other lawyers might seek to use this particular case as evidence of precedence in efforts to reign in other parents. So I think the responses of the HSLDA (and even Gov. Schwarzenegger) are not entirely unwarranted.
We'll have to watch and see what becomes of this.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Chediak | March 22, 2008 11:16 PM