Home Schooling Legal in California:
So the California Court of Appeal holds, interpreting California statutes, and reversing its earlier statutory decision in the Rachel L. case.
The court also holds there's some sort of constitutional right to home-school — again, seemingly contrary to its conclusion in Rachel L. — but that this right may be limited in this case to protect against a specific threat to the children's health and safety, because the children "have already been found dependent due to abuse and neglect of a sibling." For more on the general constitutional question, see here.
On the road now, can't blog more, but thought I'd note this.
Lata sententia, judex desinit esse judex.
I have some in-laws and a coworker who have (or are currently) home-schooling their kids. The results have been uniformly spectacular and dismal for the children involved. Neither set of parents were home-schooling for religious reasons. The in-law’s kids are screwed up...to the point where even the army won’t take one. The older son is basically precluded from attending college because his mom failed to file any of the paperwork needed to get the home-schooling acredited under Georgia law. He now has a child (at 19) and a shot-gun marriage as a result of the child. All three are socially awkward and badly behaved.
Public schools have their problems. Private schools are expensive as are many church-run schools. But at least these entities have some semblance of professionalism and are held accountable for minmum quality standards. My experience is that none of the checks and balances present in institutional schools are available to home-schooled children. Before the reversal California at least had the requirement that parents have some sort of credential for home-school. Now it appears even that is gone. I fear that in our zeal to protect kids from unpopular religious or societal influences we’ve condemned them to something much worse.
To some extent, I think that you have the problem that when home schooling fails, you can blame the parents, but when public schooling fails, you don't have anyone you can blame. But if you have a decent chance at failing in either situation, then why should the state be making the decision?
I have seen home schooling work well. At least for awhile, it seemed like most of the spelling B and geo B winners, etc. were home schooled. And the home schooled I know were able to jump from that environment into very competitive private schools without major problems - academically a lot more easily than some of the public school students making the switch.
As long as parents are making a reasonable, good faith effort to do what is best for their kids; I think that is all we can realistically expect. It seems a shame that in this case, parents doing their best may not be part of the equation.
As for this comment,
Trolling here?
There is absolutely no accountability for public school failure, yet marketplace and cultural pressures hold private schools accountable.
Teaching credentials signify next to nothing. Teaching quality depends on more than classroom-focused training. You need good teaching materials, and the teacher needs to have sensitivity and care for children's needs, and a good intention towards students. Credentials cannot create such qualities. And of course, specialized subject matter knowledge helps in the higher grades.
Ok, I'll go read the decision now.
Generally speaking (and by a wide margin) the teachers at the private school were much better teachers.
I'm not saying this proves an inverse correlation between quality of a teacher and possession of a teaching credential, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that a teaching credential is either necessary or sufficient to be a good teacher.
Public schools are part of the whole public employee civil service thang (which I am a member of myself - but not as a teacher) which emphasizes certificates, seniority, etc. and not competence, let alone - excellence.
That's why teachers unions have fought things like merit pay, etc.
Civil service is all about (again, I say this AS a civil service employee) meeting a minimum standard (and that's all you can ask for), govt. bureaucracy, and meeting a "lowest common denominator" standard, and where excellence and/or increased efficiency are often institutionally discouraged.
I believe they're actually for merit pay, so long as everyone gets it.
noice!
I think they signify opportunity cost. The teacher went to college, but spent significant time taking classes that lacked academic content.
That's not necessarily the case. I'm working on my secondary ed. license presently (as a second career grad student), and there is more than a trivial level of rigor involved, both intellectually and practically.
That said, the credentials are very much used as a barrier for entry by teacher's unions against those who might enter the market from another career (but cannot afford the two years away from full-time earnings). However, the true force behind the credential requirements are the Ed. schools in charge of providing them, and not cheap.
State governments have, under duress, passed alternative licensure procedure for second career teachers - especially, say, an engineer wanting to teach math/science - but Ed. Schools will either not admit them for the classes they are required to take or will give them no support (and in the licensure process, such support is worth its weight in gold) if they do accept them.
A very good, and readable, book on the topic: David Larabee, "The Trouble with the Ed Schools" (Yale, 2006)
I scored in the 99% percentile on the LSAT, was admitted with scholarships to multiple top-tier schools, and attended a top-25 school on a full academic scholarship. I graduated second in my class in law school--well ahead of all the kids with accredited degrees, many from ivy leagues. (Several years later, another graduate from my unaccredited religious college graduated first in his class from a top-25 law school.)
Teacher certification does not guarantee a quality education, and lack of certification does not guarantee an inferior education. Parents should have the right to choose how to educate their children.
I think homeschooling is a great education method, and my husband plans to homeschool our children. But without parental discipline, it can leave children without a basic education or the life skills necessary to succeed.
I didn't know law schools accepted graduates of unaccredited colleges. Is this standard practice?
I went to public school, then (as my screen name suggests), I went to a top-tier university and law school. I did well at all of the schools, got a 177 on the LSAT, passed the CA Bar exam on the first try, and now work at a fine law firm. Yet despite my academic success, looking back at my middle school and high school years, I would have to say that I learned (maybe "retained" is the better word) at least as much reading books outside of class, watching historical and other educational movies, visiting museums and aquariums, etc., than I learned or retained from middle school and high school.
When my wife and I were engaged, she made it clear that she wanted our children homeschooled. As of the time of our engagement, we had already become conservative, evangelical Christians, although we both attended public schools and were not very virtuous during those years (even though we would both have been considered relatively "good kids"). Well, my first reaction was "no way." I didn't know any homeschooling families, and I had the stereotype of maladjusted, socially-awkward children in my mind. I made the standard objections (and I mean "standard" -- almost every time we tell a stranger that we homeschool our children, we get these exact same questions) that our children would not have the "benefits" of social interaction at school (looking back, I realize how foolish of a comment this was), how would we handle their instruction in high school topics when I was working full time (once it's Algebra or higher, my wife must defer to me, bless her heart), etc. Needless to say, I was not at all happy during this conversation.
But then, after praying over the subject for a while and actually meeting and befriending actual homeschooling families, my doubts and objections were washed away, for good reason. First, I looked at the "social interaction at public schools" objection. I think this is the most easily defeated. When people make that objection, as I certainly once did, it's almost as if they momentarily forget (or are [willfully?] ignorant of) what actually goes on at public schools today. Looking back at my wife's and my experiences in public school (the mid-to-late eighties and the early nineties), we certainly were exposed to these social interactions: hearing obscenities and speaking them; hearing (and participating in) crude and sexual comments and conversations; experimenting with alcohol (and being around people who did drugs or smoked cigarettes); having sex.
Now, mind you, we were actually considered by adults who met us, and even by a lot of our peers, as "good kids," and we were raised in pretty decent households. There were many other students who did much worse than we did, but we still did awful things that I NEVER would want my children exposed to. And for people reading this post, please think back to your high school years: even if you were considered a "good kid," did you ever have sex; ever try alcohol, cigs, pot, or other drugs; ever hear cursing or use curse words yourself; ever hear, or make, sexual or otherwise crude comments? And if so, what in the world type of "social interaction" do we value so much from public schools? And it is much worse today than it was back then.
Once I thought through these things, I realized that the "social interaction" objection was just a reflexive reaction based on my stereotypes of homeschoolers, mainly because I had never really met and interacted with any real homeschoolers. Then I came to this conclusion: As a parent, and as a Christian, I believe I am called to protect and shield my children from such negative influences for as long as possible, and train them up in the ways of the Lord (or, for you non-Christians), in the ways of traditional values and ethics.
Of course we can't protect our children from every single bad thing in society, but we surely can try our best to do so, and why would we ever give them over to a public school system where they will be inundated daily with teachings, comments, visuals, and experiences that are exactly the opposite of what they should be exposed to?
Answer me this: If your child wanted to go to a party, and you knew in advance that at the party there would be sexual and crude conversations; cursing; talk of, and possible experimenting with, alcohol, cigarettes, pot and other drugs; children dressed in sexualized and skanky clothing; and sexual activity, would you actually let your child go to the party? If not, then how can we let our children go to public school, when they will UNDOUBTEDLY be exposed to the same things on a daily basis?
We chose not to do so, and so we have homeschooled our children (two high-school aged children now, one who is just starting kindergarten, and two who are too young to school, but will be when they get older). The results have been better than I could have ever hoped for. Our oldest children excel in all of their subjects, were taking Algebra II by the age of 13 (I don't think kids even need to pass Algebra I (or maybe even Pre-Algebra) to graduate high school today); and consistently score in very high percentiles on the standardized tests. Adults that meet our children always complement them and us on how helpful and respectful they are. They are active in youth sports, church youth group activities, etc., and are some of the most well-adjusted (socially and otherwise) children I know.
Yes, I know that not all homeschooled children are academic success stories. And you must remember that while some parents homeschool their children for religious, moral, or academic reasons (e.g., the extremely smart, atheist law professor, scientist, or engineer who knows that they can teach their children much better than a public school teacher who does not have 1/5 of the degrees that they do, and who must teach to the lowest common denominator of the class), there are also parents who have had to pull their children out of school for behavioral or learning disability reasons (e.g., a lot of autistic kids are homeschooled). But I'd be very comfortable comparing the relative levels of academic knowledge and success; sexual activity and use of alcohol, cigs, or drugs; and civic service between the populations of homeschooled children and children educated in today's public schools (especially those in California).
Not all parents can homeschool (if you're a single parent, it would almost be impossible). You need a stay-at-home parent, and my wife and I thank God that she has been able to never work during our marriage. But there are a lot of two-parent households who mistakenly feel that they need two incomes, when they really don't if they truly prioritized and cut back. Yes, I work at a nice law firm, and get paid well. But while all the other associates are driving new BMWs, Mercedes, or Lexuses, I'm driving a 12-year-old Camry with 180,000 miles on it. And we live in a very modest home, when a lot of my colleagues "have to have both parents work" in order to pay a huge mortgage on a large house (or expensive condo in a downtown high rise) that, while being very nice, could be done without if having a stay-at-home mom was a top priority.
Well, sorry for rambling on, and I'm really sorry for the length of this post, but if you're still reading it at this point then I hope it was at least helpful in the sense of being exposed to another viewpoint or world view on the topic of homeschooling.
When do they enter the real world? When the do, will they have the experience as well as theory necesary to avoid succumbing to he attitudes you cite?
If I'm remembering correctly, ABA accrediting rules require law schools generally to limit admissions to graduates of accredited schools. I believe there is a limited exception written into the rules.
I didn't find the lack of accreditation to be a problem. In fact, I received multiple letters providing application-fee waivers and inviting me to apply to the sending school. I was admitted to ten schools--most with significant scholarships. I don't remember all of my scholarships offers, but I do remember that I had significant scholarship offers from UChicago, Duke, GW, and others. Two schools invited me to scholarship weekends (all expenses paid).
Overall, I don't think the lack of accreditation is an issue as long as one does well in whatever undergraduate institution he attends and, more importantly, does well on the LSAT. Essentially, an excellent LSAT score validates one's undergraduate education.
I know multiple graduates from my undergraduate school and other unaccredited undergraduate schools who have been admitted to top-tier law schools.
(FYI, my school's lack of accreditation is by choice rather than by inability to obtain the accreditation.)
"If not, then how can we let our children go to public school, when they will UNDOUBTEDLY be exposed to the same things on a daily basis?"
When do they enter the real world? When the do, will they have the experience as well as theory necesary to avoid succumbing to he attitudes you cite?
[Me again]
Elliot123: I'm sure you agree that there are many differences between children and adults. Society draws lines all the time between what children should be exposed to, and what they shouldn't. You can't see an R rated movie until you're 17 (yes, I know the exception). You can't drink until you're 21. You can't go into your local porn shop until you're 18. Why has society set these limits re: age? While the logic may not always prove perfect, I think the reason is that society recognizes that children, during their formative years, should not be exposed to certain societal and cultural realities, because at their age those things (and their effects) could have a disproportionate adverse impact on the child's development, psyche, belief as to what is acceptable or civilized behavior, etc.
Would you give your 14 year old a beer? If not, why not? Would you let your 8 year old watch SAW II? If not, why not? Even if you have no problem with Playboy, for example, would you permit your 12 year old son to read them? Again, if not, why not?
There certainly are studies out there that indicate that the longer you keep your child from smoking, etc., the more likely it is that the child will not engage in those activities later on in life. Look, I don't know if you are a parent. But for all of the parents reading this, I'm pretty confident that 99% of them desire that their children NOT be exposed, for as long as possible, to the bad things that I identified as occurring daily in public schools. (Well, given the libertarian leaning of many posters and readers at this blog, maybe a bit less than 99%.)
I've just never understood the logic that says it is a NET POSITIVE to expose your children to the sex talk, cursing, sexual activity, etc. that goes on at public schools every day, for some perceived benefit in the future. (Exactly WHAT is the benefit (short or long term) of your child having their classmates in the 9th grade tell him/her about the BJ that they gave/received last night. or the skunk bud that they smoked that morning before first period??)
I think the answer to your question is this: Parents should try to shield their children from negative things as long as possible. Society will have better adults if that happens (NOT perfect, but better). We certainly are VERY open with our kids about the fact that many children their age are doing drugs, or having premarital sex, and the personal pain, danger, and adverse effects on society that this behavior causes. So it's not like they live in a cave and will go out into the world at 18 or 20 or whenever and have no idea that these bad things are going on in the world. But the difference is that they will have heard about them from us, in a context that stresses the real-life negative consequences of the action. Would you not agree that that is much preferable to our children having learned about drugs, pre-marital sex, etc. from classmates who romanticize or popularize these activities, and pressure them to participate? I certainly think so, and I'm happy with the results so far.
Which makes sense to anyone who seriously thinks about the reality of facing down 30 eight year-olds for an entire day. But it doesn't make me all that impressed with the accreditation as an indicator of how well my kid is going to be taught.
We attended an homeschool convention this summer - there is a mind boggling number of resources available. Most homeschool families we know here on the "westside" of Los Angeles are connected to a larger co-op or support group, with their kids involved in community, sports, and service organizations.
The results speak for themselves: homeschoolers consistently out-perform their peers in both public and private schools. Is homeschooling for everyone? Absolutely not! But it's insulting to argue that homeschoolers parents need to be certified to teach their own children.
The interesting point about the latest decision is that it demonstrates that American courts don't interpret the U.S., or CA, Constitution but rather use the document as a backdrop or excuse for creating, or eliminating, justice-defined "constitutional" rights. Let's see: home schooling was not a constitutional right in 2008, although home schooling had existed from before George Washington's time (George, by the way, was home schooled), but then, after a short time to "reconsider" (i.e., feel the heat), it turned out to have been one all along. (Though one the Court doesn't especially like, which is why they provided some tips for the legislature about how the "right" really ought to be restricted.)
On the other hand, same-sex marriage, which had not existed in Washington's time (or, more precisely, at California's admission to the Union), is found unambiguously to be a fundamental "constitutional" right (fundamental = doesn't need tips to the legislature on how to restrict), by a single vote.
This is not to argue which, as policy, should be rights. It is to argue that if your rights and mine need to be identified (same-sex marriage), unidentified (home schooling without a credential), and re-identified (home schooling without a credential but with a warning about significant but undeclared future limitations), then do we truly have any rights at all?
As our home-schooled daughters say, "props" to VC for facilitating reasoned discourse on this and other issues, without all of the far-right and far-left flame throwing one comes to expect on other blogs.