03.10.08
Home Skooled
This article from the San Francisco Chronicler explains an appellate court’s decision concerning the rights of parents over the education of their children. California decided (within the application of a compulsory education law, passed in the 50’s) that a parent must have teaching credentials to home-school. This has shocked the home-school world, as well as created minor paranoia (I heard one pastor berating the state for its hate of the family). I felt that Al Mohler had a balanced treatment of the issue here (refer to his March 7th blog).
What bothers me about these regulations was the state’s governing what determines a good education. But then I read where the director of the Childrens’ Law Center in Los Angeles (in the article) said that their
“chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”
I suppose this is a relief in one sense. In my three years at a community college (one as a remedial reading teacher) I have been discouraged with the lack of education in many government school graduates.
However, if parents do not possess the moral “duty to ensure” their own child’s “ongoing safety”, how can we expect paid teachers to take this duty seriously toward every child in their classroom?
In 1647, when the Old Deluder Act was passed, it was made a requirement for the town to offer (taxed) education, but not require it. Ironically, their intention was to help keep the scriptures accessible, since Satan attempts to keep Scripture from men. I think the State of California is doing an adequate job now.
Washington State has more relaxed regulations. I am covered because I have had at least 45 college level credit hours. Once my child is 8, I do have to provide a declaration of intent to my local school district every year, as well as comply with yearly assessment tests. Thankfully, the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Education still deems home based instruction an educational right. Should the law change, I figure I have 8 years to get my teaching certification in 
.
Aunt Sandie said,
March 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm
One thing that gave me pause was the quote the judge used from the 1961 ruling . . .
“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.
The phrase ‘loyalty to the state’ could certainly be considered with negative connotations. Loyalty to the state above what? I believe that children in China and North Korea are taught to be ‘loyal to the state’.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought that the primary purpose of the educational system is to educate children — although I suppose indoctrinate would be a more appropriate description these days. And, yes, I do understand the difference between the phrases ‘A primary purpose’ and ‘The primary purpose’ (emphasis on the first word in each phrase).
That all aside, how are you feeling? Hope you and your precious cargo are doing well! Love, Aunt Sandie
watercolorworld said,
March 21, 2008 at 9:42 am
I have a confession. My daughter began her homeskooling career as an illegal. Her uneducated, careless mother subjected her to her daily lessons in a California kitchen. The only redeeming factor was a move to the state of Washington. That move alone added some credential to the poor child’s disastererous tutelage. She’s suffered greatly, certainly, from such a dillatantish education.
Kari Alisa said,
May 3, 2008 at 9:56 am
EhEM! Time for a little update from Gabriel’s mommy!