Parents Nyet, State Da
Posted March 25th, 2008 by Da King
Parents "do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote California appellate Justice Walter Croskey.
The hell they don't, judge Croskey. Have you read the U.S. Constitution ? Apparently not. Makes me wonder how you got to be a judge in the first place. Or maybe you should stay away from those west coast medical marijuana stores.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
A California court ruled this month that parents cannot "home school" their children without government certification. No teaching credential, no teaching…The 166,000 families in the state that now choose to educate their children at home must be stunned.
No doubt. But look who's HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY about this act of judicial communism !
"We're happy," the California Teachers Association's Lloyd Porter told the San Francisco Chronicle. He says the union believes all students should be taught only by "credentialed" teachers, who will in due course belong to unions.
That's just great, Lloyd ! Think of all those brand new union dues ! Never mind the fact that home schooled kids perform way better than their public school counterparts.
For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education. Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT — and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.
Hmmm. That's an inconvenient fact for Big Brother. Sounds like they'll have to come up with some sort of phony excuse to impose the will of the Politburo here….
The case was initiated by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services after a home-schooled child reportedly complained of physical abuse by his father. A lawyer assigned to two of the family's eight children invoked the truancy law to get the children enrolled in a public school and away from their parents. So a single case of parental abuse is being used to promote the registration of all parents who crack a book for their kids.
I fail to see the justification for banning home schooling due to one case of child abuse. That's like banning automobiles because of one car crash.
This isn't the first time this was attempted. Congress made the effort back in the 90's.
In 1994, a federal attempt to require certification of parent-teachers went down in flames as hundreds of thousands of calls lit up phone banks on Capitol Hill. The movement has since only grown larger and better organized, now conservatively estimated at well over a million nationwide. But what they can't accomplish legislatively, unions are now trying to achieve by diktat from the courts.
Here we go again. This California judge isn't following the Constitution, he's attempting an end run around it. I'd love to hear the opinions of our three remaining presidential contenders on this issue. Let's see if any of the three still understand what liberty means. California has made all of the home-schooled children truants, and all of their parents criminals. At a time like this, I wish I didn't have an anti-profanity rule on this blog. I'll have to resort to cartoon profanity:
*&!!^$$!!* those *##!!%%%#ers !!!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Yes, into the indoctrination centers known as the public schools.
Public education is the vehicle by which the Left hope to destroy the Christian foundation of America and thereby the Republic.
And isn't it amazing, kids homeschooled by moms, many of whom have no college degree regularly outperform the kiddies from the costly public schools who are instructed by the so-called education experts.
Don't look now, but the emperor [the public schools] has no clothes on he is restorting to brute force to maintain his privilages.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Did I miss the part where you included parts of the Constitution that guarantees parents have the right to educate their children any way they desire?
And your post here is misleading. The issue is CERTIFICATION, not home schooling. Does the state have the right to demand CERTIFICATION of qualification from those who home school?
Naturally, this is all an attempt to destroy Chrisitianity.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Rev, this IS all a part of an attempt by the left to destroy Christianity, and you know it.
King, I can provide many examples of incompetence in the education of kids in the home but in nearly every case it was done for other than the good of the kids. I am against the teachers' unions 100% and think that I have a better background for that for having been a member for a long time. I withdrew from the NEA in 1976 when the group gave Carter over $4.5 million to campaign with, in violation of the law. He promised them a seperate Dept. of Education and if you check the first thing done under him was just that. The NEA had to offer each member the part of the amount given Carter that was the teacher's share. I was the only one in our school who took the trouble to fill out the necessary paper work. The amount we were refunded was $4.30 since that was the amount he got from my dues. I never managed to join the union after that.
My wife still pays dues for the malpractice insurance they provide with dues payment. She is as much against the union as I am but is also aware of the litigious society we live in and knows that any little thing might bring on a law suit, whether wrong or not.
Yep, Rev Red, the unions are very much in favor of the destruction of Christianity. Did you read lately that Moveon and several other groups just like them have about $350 million to use against McCain this fall? It seems that the AFL -CIO has provided about 2/3 of that amount. Oh yeah, those unions are to be commended for their concentrated efforts for the left.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It's not my area of law, but this is nothing new in California; such laws have been in effect since the 1950's. Aren't you guys the ones who want the laws already on the books enforced? If you don't like it, why don't you get your hero the Terminator to do something about it? Or is this all Obama and Clinton's fault, too?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I'd be interested to know if you king, you vince, or you roy homeschooled your kids, but I think I already know the answer.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I don't know about that destruction of Christianity stuff, but Rev, I hope you were kidding about the Constitution, because your question implies that you have it all backwards. What the Constitution doesn't do is grant the government the exclusive right to educate your children. Since it doesn't grant that right, the government has no sole claim over it. The Constitution limits the government. As the 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." It's called freedom. You really should be for it. Most people think it's important.
And no, the state doesn't have the right to demand certification for home schoolers. That's a phony issue anyway. What is certification ? How do you get certified as a teacher ? You get a college degree in education, that's how. The government knows that will kill home schoolers. The government can take a flying leap. They have NO right to demand this. They have NO right to make criminals out of thoughtful and engaged parents.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Vince,
So many public schools are just glorified day care centers where kids learn next to nothing, so I'm not even a little bit surprised that engaged home schooling parents could outperform that. It would only be surprising if they didn't.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Roy,
I'd like to see that Department of Education dismantled. It doesn't educate one student. It just provides jobs for bureaucrats. How did we ever get along without it prior to Jimmah Cahtuh ? Just fine, that's how. In fact, better.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Nice use of "engaged" before home schooling parents, king. Isn't that the difference with any system of education?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
da truth,
I can't tell from your comments. Do you agree that home schooling should be allowed, or do you think the state should always reign supreme, and that parents don't have the right to educate their children as they see fit ? That is the question to be addressed here. The rest is just argument for argument's sake.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
King,
Yes, it does indeed appears as you say that "So many public schools are just glorified day care centers where kids learn next to nothing, .." but there is more to it.
The public schools are true indoctrination centers even when they are complete failures in terms of educating.
One of the main goals of the public education system is to separate children from the influence of the family. This was one of Tom Dewy's stated objective when he and his fellow progressives at Columbia structured how the schools should be.
Another goal of the schools is to brainwash in the kids in the gospel of secularism and to have an over-dependence on big government when they grow up.
As a noted columnist once wrote, "The public schools are the reproductive organs of the atheistic liberal elite in America." This was a great insight. Abortion loving liberals have trouble reproducing their own so they try to seal the minds of Christian children via the government schools.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I believe home schooling should be allowed, king, but my opinion is not the issue. You attacked a legitimate legal ruling that merely follows the state of the law as it has been in California for some time. Seems pointless to me, especially since the R in charge of that state won't do anything to change it.
And you are right, the rest is just argument for arguments sake….except that the argument cuts to whats hypocritical about how people who call them conservatives live. You guys always complain about all these terrible things that democrats do, but when challenged on what have Rs have done to change the very things you question, you become silent. It's ridiculous. Like Vince with his abortion arguments.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Fellows, last evening my wife told me that she is teaching from a new Psychology book that doesn't mention evolution at all. It came into the school in the two years when our state board of education was dominated by some people who thought that our schools must teach kids about the silly thing I can't bring myself to type and that book just left out evolution. Recent elections got those people out of office and now we are teaching only evolution in our schools in Kansas.
Do you guys remember when everybody in the nation was laughing at Kansas for being Cre (as far as I can go with that word). I was terribly embarrassed at all that but that is what the state said to teach. I remember quite well how I just couldn't find a new text book for American History in 1986 because of all the left handed publishers and the pap they were putting out. I'm not sure when the books I continued to use from the mid 70s finally wore out but I guess that school never did get any leftist history teachers. Still doesn't have any, either, 22 years after they kicked me out.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
da truth,
You said, "….except that the argument cuts to whats hypocritical about how people who call them conservatives live. You guys always complain about all these terrible things that democrats do…"
I fail to see any hypocrisy. I never even mentioned the word 'democrat' in this story, and I don't know the political affiliation of the judge who made the ruling. What I care about here is the idea that this ruling says the state reigns supreme over a parent's wishes for their own child. That IS the issue, and what you are talking about has nothing to do with the issue.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Roy,
You mean they don't use Howard Zinn's book for american history class ???
Thank god, lol.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Of course you fail to see the hypocrisy, king, because your one of the Rs guilty of it. The judge merely did what you Rs say he should, he followed the state of the law as it exists in California. That's why I even brought up arguments about hypocrisy. You guys always cry "liberal judge this, liberal judge that", but when a judge actually follows precedent, you blast him for it, if it's precedent you don't like. You can't have it both ways and your whole piece was hypocritical because of it.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
You think it's hypocritical of me to disagree with a judge who says home schoolers don't have the right to home school their kids (and just for the record, I didn't say 'liberal judge' at all, nor did I even characterize this as 'liberal', and neither did I discuss 'precedent'. That was all you).
You call me hypocritical even though you agree with me that parents DO have the right to home school their kids. Are you calling yourself a hypocrite as well ?
But I think I get it now. You aren't arguing with me at all, you are arguing with some negative Republican stereotype you have set in your mind.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
It is time for me to go back to college. I thought the purpose of the constitituion was to limit the rights of the government over the people. It now appears the government has the right to do anything unless the constitituon implicitly cedes that particlular right to the individual.
Da Truth–do everyone a favor and abandon putting an R besides a believe or person everytime someone disagrees with the TRUTH (as you see it) . Life is more complicated than the sophomoric beleive that there only two schools of thought —yours and R's
March 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Yes, King, I am calling you hypocritical and I am arguing with a R stereotype, because while many times you don't act that way, many times you do, including this time.
This judge followed the state of the law of his jurisdiction. This is the type of thing conservatives insist judges do. Yet when one does so in with a ruling you don't like, you blasted him. That is hypocritical. He didn't change any policy in California away from what it already is. If you have a problem with the home school situation in California, you need to attack the lawmakers there in the 1950s who made it so, not a judge who is following his oath to uphold the state of the law as it is.
As for my "liberal judge" comment, you know exactly what I mean. You Rs constantly attack what you call "liberal judges" when they rule in ways that you don't like. You say that they should not be setting policy, they should be interpreting law. Well, this judge did that.
AC, you must be new here, because anyone who knows my history posting on this blog knows I couldn't care less what you label something. Perhaps you can show me where I compared these so-called two schools of thought you mention. And also, please show me how the Rs don't constantly bash judges when a judge rules in a way that you Rs think doesn't favor you. I'll abandon my search for the truth as I see it someday, but as long as people like you and Vince walk the earth I can't imagine that will be anytime soon.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
This was an absurd ruling even for California.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
da truth,
Allthough I have not read this blog for an extended time you have been consistent. Those who disagree with you are generally personally demeaned and in some way an R is thrown in which I beleive you have defined as the scumbag party. Is it not true that when politcally engaged people from all perspectives encounter a ruling they strongly dislike that they complain? Did not libs rail about some of the decisions that supported Bush's "war on terror".
March 27th, 2008 at 5:25 am
da truth,
Thank you for pointing out that I am a stereotype and not a person who can have an opinion. I guess I was just supposed to blindly follow that judge on home schooling, even though I disagree with him. I'll try harder next time, comrade.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
AC,
I don't know if libs railed, I railed yes, because those rulings violated the state of the law at the time they were issued. I never called Rs scumbags; please either read my posts or cite to the evidence you have against me when posting.
King, I don't care who you follow on home schooling. However, what did the judge do that is out of line with the state of the law in his state? He did nothing out of line. Which is my point. Your thinking on this particular point was stereotypical.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
If it were to begin anywhere, I would have assumed it to be California or Massachussets. Somehow they're always responsible for introducing out-of-mainstream agendas. If this doesn't represent socialism and the teacher's lobby at work, I'm not sure what does.
Now that they've passed legislation to provide homosexual "awareness" to younger children, it is evident what is transpiring.
This is an all out war to brainwash the children of America and adjust them to the diseases of liberalism. Parents can be the only source of defense. Home schooling seems like a good defense.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Alex: "This is an all out war to brainwash the children of America and adjust them to the diseases of liberalism."
Amen, bro!
And again, "the public schools are the reproductive organ of the godless Left."
March 27th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
da truth,
I have already answered the question you asked, and I answered it at the very beginning of my original post.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Alex,
Since the 'certification' California is seeking means that home schooling parents would have to get 4-year college degrees (which is how one becomes certified to teach), I agree with you. This law is a strong step towards the elimination of home schooling altogether. It's ALL about the control of the state. It makes criminals out of parents who want to keep their kids out of government (liberal) inundation. Very anti-american. It's kind of like the Fairness Doctrine for kids. It eliminates the dissenting voice.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:03 am
King, you haven't answered anything, you just keep talking in circles:
"Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.
"California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."
Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.
"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," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue."
SF Chronicle
It's the state of the law in California. He merely enforced it as is. You remember that judges can't make law, right? Tell your boy AH-NOLD to change it if it needs to be changed. The judge was absolutely right.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
What is wrong with you ? I know what the law is. The article I linked to originally stated what the law is. There was no effort to hide it. Duh.
My point, for about the 10th time, is that I DISAGREE with the law, and I disagree with the judge when he says parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their kids. They most certainly do. The Constitution does not grant the sole right to the government, therefore the people retain the right, and further, parents most definitely should have a say over their own children's education.
And you sound like a freaking idiot talking about my boy AH-NOLD without knowing my opinion of him. I'm not even a fan of his. You must be under the mistaken impression that I agree with everyone who has that R next to his name. You couldn't be more wrong.
Now, unless you want to make up some more imaginary arguments, I think I'll move on.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Yes, of course you'll move on, because you know you're wrong. In your post, you made it sound like this is something new in California, which it isn't. If it's such a huge deal, have it changed, since we both agree the country is mostly conservative anyway. Much like the defense of marriage act, you are trying to make an issue when the only one there is that conservatives have been lazy for 50 years in allowing this to be the state of the law in California.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I'm wrong about what, exactly ?
The judge's ruling IS new. That's what I was talking about. The case was in court NOW. The reason the judge made the NEW ruling is because SOMEONE CHALLENGED IT.
Duh, dude. How inane.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:40 am
King,
A bit of advise.
A wise man does not argure with a fool because it makes him look foolish, too.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
That fully explains why I refrain from arguing directly with specific commenters.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It's not a new ruling it's the same old ruling they've had forever on a new case. It would be like someone reporting that abortion is now legal. Yes, we know. So what?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:25 am
Vince,
It's my way of vetting. I like to know what I'm dealing with.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:53 am
"I like to know what I'm dealing with."
You're dealing with left-wing loons. But hey, if you enjoy it, keep whackin' 'em.
But one caveat, King.
You risk growing complacent by dealing with those two or three puff-cakes that respond to you here. This could throw your sharpness & timing off if/when you run into a lib or Dim with real intelligence & knowledge.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I wish a liberal with a real argument would show up here. Someone we could all take seriously and engage in a real discussion with, but alas, it is not so, at least not yet.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Senator Obama or anyone else in this world SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT COMES OUT OF ANOTHER PERSONS MOUTH! THIS IS AMERICA, FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SENATOR Obama is running for President of the United States of America, and if the media would continually broadcast the many stories made up by Senator Clinton, and treat each candidate the same, people would see this as fair; however, it is not fair to CONTUALLY TALK ABOUT SENATOR OBAMA'S PASTOR.
PEOPLE, LETS MOVE ON. WE HAVE A CAMPAIGN TO CONTINUE RUNNING. THE STORY HAS BEEN TOLD, GET OFF THE BANDWAGON OF BASHING OBAMA FOR HIS PASTOR'S WORDS.
THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG W/AMERICA. WE CONCENTRATE ON TOO MANY THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER, and we cannot change.
LETS CONCENTRATE ON ELECTING A DEMONCRATIC NOMINEE, AND LEAVE THE OTHER "PETTY STUFF BEHIND."