03.07.08

California Homeschoolers in an Uproar over Appellate Ruling

Posted in Activism, Articles, Commentary, Current Events, Education, Homeschooling at 4:05 pm by Christina

A ruling came out of California’s Second Appellate Court last week, in re Rachel L., that if read quite broadly, denies everyone but credentialed teachers the right to homeschool their children in this state:

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court’s refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child.” (page 3)

In California, there is no “homeschooling”. There is public schooling, compulsory attendance to which is required of children aged 6 to 18; and there are a few exemptions to compulsory attendance. The pertinent exemptions from this case are listed in Ed. Code Section 48220ff. Children can be exempted from attendance by one of two paths: credentialed tutoring or private schooling. The tutoring exemption is very specific, requiring an appropriate state credential as well as regulated hours of instruction. The private school exemption (48222 in the above link) is far more general:

  1. “Children who are being instructed in a private full-time day school by persons capable of teaching shall be exempted.”
  2. Teaching must be in English, with certain exceptions.
  3. The school must “offer instruction in the several branches of study required to be taught in the public schools.”
  4. Attendance must be kept, including all absences half a day or greater.

The exemption is valid after the attendance supervisor or similarly designated official confirms that the private school is in compliance with Section 33190, the private school affidavit statute, which requires an annual filing with the state. (In practice, I don’t believe any district verifies the private school exemption proactively for every private school student; that would be incredibly costly in staff and funding each year. The exemption is only verified if an attendance challenge is made.) Interestingly,

“The verification required by this section shall not be construed as an evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of any private school or course.” (48222 again)

This is echoed in 33190:

“Filing pursuant to this section shall not be interpreted to mean [legal jargon about what "mean" means] … that the State of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction [etc.] … has made any evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of the school or course … “

These clauses emphasize the determination of the state to avoid interference in the educational operations of private schools. Private schools are therefore free to pursue with broad discretion the type of education they choose, both in content and in methodology. A school is free to teach young earth creationism or to implement the free democratic school philosophy (e.g. Sudbury Valley or Summerhill strategy), or other content or methodology as they wish.

In practice, the combination of the private school exemption and the very limited private school regulations (essentially an hour or two of paperwork each year for a tiny, two-student school such as I operate) have formed the foundation for independent homeschooling in this state. There is nothing in California law, statutory or judicial, that restricts the establishment of a private school as done by homeschoolers here. No law

  • says a private school can’t be located in a private residence.
  • says a private school must charge tuition.
  • says a private school must have a minimum number of students.
  • says a private school teacher can’t instruct their own child(ren). (In fact, the criminal background check provision for school personnel states explicitly that it is waived for a parent working exclusively with their own child(ren).)
  • says a private school can’t have one adult who is principal, faculty and staff simultaneously.

Although the recent ruling has every homeschool e-list in the state, and many more around the country, wildly abuzz with strategic discussion and well-informed indignation, in a strict reading the Second Appellate Court has changed only one aspect of California’s education law. In a Bill Clinton-esque (someone else’s beautifully appropriate adjective) application of semantics, the private school exemption statute was interpreted to mean that a student must be in physical attendance at the private school:

“Section 48222 provides an exemption from compulsory public school education for ‘[c]hildren who are being instructed in a private full-time day school.’ (Italics added.)” (ruling p.15; italicized emphasis of “in” is part of the ruling, just to be clear!)

The children in the case, while enrolled in a private school, participated in that school’s independent study program (ISP). The school in question does in fact have a campus program as well, but there are many ISP-only private schools throughout the state serving homeschoolers exclusively. What the Second Appellate Court discovered is that there is no law (pro or con) governing the authority of a private school to offer independent study. There is only Ed. Code 51745, which gives authority to public school districts and county boards of education to establish ISPs (presumably but not explicitly within the public system).

It is important to note that this case does not arise solely from a compulsory attendance challenge, but from the family’s frequent intersection with various child protective services. This particular case was instigated by one of the children on behalf of herself and I believe two of her siblings, for various reasons of neglect and/or abuse. Their court-appointed attorneys wanted them in a traditional school facility, where they would be under the regular observation of more adults; this would presumably give them more protection against said neglect and/or abuse. The trial court ruled that the parents have a constitutional right to homeschool, and the appellate court overturned that ruling of law, with the full documentation of statute and precedent.

I have concluded, from reading through the various documents and statutes, that my own homeschooling choice (to run a private school) is not affected by this ruling. I am in compliance with all the private school regulations, and my children attend, on-site, a private school within the exemption guidelines ruled in this case. I do not expect district officials to come to my door demanding truancy proceedings on my kids.

Notwithstanding the legitimacy of my own homeschooling method, I believe this ruling makes an unfairly strict interpretation of the private school exemption by denying the right of a private school to offer independent study. Since independent study is explicitly organized for the public schools in 51745, the state obviously believes it is acceptable for a student to do the bulk of their learning away from the direct supervision of their official school teacher. Given the minimalist statutory regulation of private schools in California, quite the opposite of this ruling makes better sense: that there is an implied right for a legally compliant private school similarly to offer independent study. Independent study by definition reduces a student’s exposure to their teacher; whether that teacher is public and credentialed, or private and “capable of teaching”, makes no difference. The court could easily have ignored or rejected the parents’ “constitutional right to homeschool” argument and made the case under welfare law that it was “in the best interests” of the children that they be enrolled in a traditional school.

State Superintendent Jack O’Connell went on record in response to media inquiries about this ruling that he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling”, which is a bit vague but still a reasonable comment, unlike the teachers’ union officials who have cited the ruling in support of their belief that all students should be taught by a credentialed teacher, obviously in complete ignorance of CA private school regulations. Governor Schwarzenegger went on record more vehemently, calling the ruling “outrageous” and for it to be overturned by the courts or by new legislation. This support from state officials is greatly appreciated, though there is rampant speculation that they are less motivated by concern for parental rights, and more concerned with the reality that 166,000 homeschooled kids at more than $7500 per child means the state would need to find $1.245 billion merely in ADA funding (average daily attendance), to say nothing of facility space for all those kids, at a time of universal cuts to balance a state budget with a shortfall of $7 billion or more.

The assorted homeschooling advocacy groups concerned with California issues (I belong to both HSC and CHN and there are others) are strongly against legislative action and are recommending that individual homeschoolers sit tight while the legal eagles work for a milder, but still thorough, resolution to the issue. (In general, legislation is not desired because it always comes with extensive hoops that detract seriously from the efficacy of homeschooling; the most intrusive and most common is standardized testing, which as we see in the public schools causes “teaching to the test” and erodes true education and learning.) These advocates have agreed to seek from the CA Supreme Court the “depublication” of the ruling; this step would have the ruling limited to the troubled family at issue in the case, thereby denying its broader application vis a vis the statutory interpretations.

I strongly support this action as promoting both an affirmation of the rights of California homeschoolers and a positive resolution for the children at risk in the case. I have made a financial donation to the legal effort, and have offered my time and energy as a volunteer to the various legal and media teams. (I did a pre-interview with a TV reporter this morning but the manager didn’t approve his story; this afternoon, I spoke on record with a reporter for the Fresno Bee.)

If you are interested in making a financial donation to support the effort, here are the direct links for that: HSC CHN

Links to articles and statements about the case:

09.13.07

Soon everyone will need a Ph.D.?

Posted in Articles, Education at 11:19 pm by Christina

The New York Times had an article today about how the demand for masters programs and degrees is exploding.  It’s amazing to me that in just a few generations, the entire paradigm of learning has shifted so dramatically.  My own father never got a college degree and he is probably the last of those for whom it was possible to achieve a successful professional career without one.  (He works in telecommunications management.)  The experiential path to career success is narrowing rapidly, and yet for most jobs one can never learn the real nuts and bolts in the classroom.  Even with those professions requiring the most “education” we can see this demonstrated; for example, look at the years that doctors must spend in residency and internship.

As a homeschooler I obviously embrace a lot of alternative educational perspectives, but I wonder sometimes if the schooling juggernaut is beyond stopping…

06.01.07

What about scope and sequence?

Posted in Commentary, Education, Homeschooling, Kids at 3:54 pm by Christina

I homeschool in a pretty unregulated state: California. Here, we have a few different legal paths of exemption from compulsory attendance at a traditional public school:

  • alternative public school (e.g., a district independent study program, a public “charter” school)
  • credentialed tutoring
  • private school (either someone else’s, or create your own!)

Independent homeschoolers in California who have no need for external supervision or institutional support follow the guidelines for establishing and operating their own private school. (Well, some do practice civil disobedience against the compulsory attendance law and homeschool “underground”.) This is how I homeschool; I run a private school called The Learning Continuum, which currently has one administrator (me), two teachers (me and my partner), and two students (the baby isn’t of compulsory age yet!). Each fall I file a private school affidavit with the state Department of Education averring my compliance with private school regulations. These are quite minimal:

  • attendance records (basically a calendar that says “A=Absent”; my kids are never absent on a “school day”)
  • faculty and staff records (a simple resume; a CA private school teacher must be “capable of teaching”)
  • health and immunization records (for which a waiver option is legal)
  • course of study (required: offering courses in the general subjects of public schooling, i.e., science, mathematics, etc.)

Private schools are otherwise unregulated unless they pass various size thresholds for institutional health and safety requirements (like fire escapes and so forth). There is no governance of curricula, hours/days/scheduling, grades, testing, diplomas, and so forth. I am very happy to be homeschooling in California because of this. California homeschoolers have a terrific amount of freedom to approach their children’s education from the philosophical and methodological bases that are appropriate for their particular family. (And yes, this freedom comes at what some perceive as a cost: the ability of parents we disagree with to apply their own values in education, whether that be teaching creationism (or paganism), or never purchasing a textbook (or only purchasing textbooks). Diversity is the true cost – or is it benefit? – of all freedom, not just freedom in homeschooling…)

Given the CA regulations I described above, independent homeschoolers here are not mandated to follow a particular scope and sequence. For those not familiar with the term, it refers to the academic breadth and progression of a particular topic. Sometimes this is categorized by topic (for example, Decimals from McREL; here is their scope and sequence home page). However, it is most commonly organized by grade level, such as at World Book; the California Department of Education has a bit of a hybrid, starting with the general subject areas and working by grade within those. Although adherence to a particular S&S is not required in CA, many homeschoolers do so, making a personal choice to either use curricula that offer that kind of structure, or creating their own curriculum following a published S&S like the ones above.

Other homeschoolers are more freewheeling. I count myself in that category (in “official” homeschooling lingo, my style is termed “eclectic”); we start off as complete unschoolers, establish structure in some areas around the 9th or 10th birthday, and liberally follow the kids’ learning interests as general pedagogy. Every once in a while I have an urge – part intellectual interest, part anxiety – to look over scope and sequence documents and see “how I am doing” as a homeschooling parent. For example, my older daughter (11) is attending a music sleep-away camp later this month; she will be immersed in a group of traditionally-schooled kids for the entire week (the first time this is occurring without evening respite). Embracing the motto “be prepared”, we will help her strategize handling any situations that arise from our alternative choices; in order to do this for academics, I have to research what exactly it is that they’ll know. I also spent several hours yesterday with a homeschooling friend whose kids are in a public school program (and who therefore track the CDE requirements more closely than we do); occasionally the competitive instinct stimulates me to seek where my kids are in relation to the vast majority of kids out there.

I always discover the same thing: my kids’ knowledge is scattered on the S&S like seeds tossed in the wind. Some of the things they know aren’t even listed, because I and they value categories of knowledge that have lost favor – or perhaps never had it – in public education (e.g., music and other fine arts; visual arts and crafts; anything that was ever learned in a “home economics” class; inter- and intrapersonal skills; etc.). For the things that are listed, I must travel all over a grade-level S&S in order to find what they have learned. I always discover that they know far more than I would have been able to articulate; and when I find things they have not yet learned, it’s always because it does not yet have relevance in their lives (and not because I forgot to pass on the knowledge).

Scope and sequence documents are useful and important in public education; they are part of the system of accountability that is necessary in all government endeavors. For homeschoolers, their utility is far less evident. So much of knowledge is non-linear, thereby obviating the sequence segment; and breadth of knowledge is such an individualized experience that what is touted as a “one size fits all” scope becomes in reality a “one size fits none”. Most homeschoolers seek a far less generalized education for their children, wanting to offer them knowledge that they will retain, not forget. If you bookmark S&S sites, as indeed I have, remember that as a homeschooler you must use them with care!