Why What Happens in California Matters

by Valorie Delp | More from this Blogger

07 Mar 2008 05:27 AM

For the first time, at least that I'm aware of, in a long time, a state court has ruled essentially, that homeschoolng is illegal. Not just for one family, but for all of the families in California. The court has left just three options: attending a public school, attending a private school, or having a certified teacher tutor the children.

I know very little about this case, about the Long's personally, or about how it got to this point. I do know that the court has made a precedent setting decision that could eventually affect every homeschooler in the nation. The statements written by the judges in this case echo similar statements made by German officials. In Germany, homeschooling is illegal via a law created in 1938 by none other than Adolf Hitler.

This is what the judges had to say: We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence.'". "We agree ... 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The Issues

There are two key issues that I see that should have everyone concerned. The first is that the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of the family were of no consequence to the court. In other states, families can homeschool under their "sincerely held religious beliefs" because after all, we as a country promote religious tolerance--or at least I thought we did.

The second, and I think maybe even more serious issue is at hand, is the question of whose children these really are? Are they the Long's children, or the state's children? According to this decision, they are the state's children.

I cannot really comment on whether or not the Long's were in full compliance with the law--but I would contend that it no longer matters. The court didn't issue a ruling against the Long's on the basis of their record keeping, their curriculum or lack thereof, or anything else having specifically to do with the Longs. They issued a ruling against parental rights, homeschooling, and sincerely held religious beliefs.

Learn more about Valorie Delp

Hello everybody! My name is Valorie and I am one busy lady! When I'm not writing or editing for families, I am busy trying to get my brood of 5 in line.

View Full Profile | More from this Blogger

Andrea Hermitt (5472) 07 Mar 2008 06:47 AM

Personally I am pretty peeved on this one. It's like the judge decided that no kids could have candy because one kid has an allergy.

Valorie Delp (49340) 07 Mar 2008 07:06 AM

LOL That's a pretty good analogy. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Of couse HSLDA is all over it. But since the family wasn't a member family--they only heard of it when the decision was already in the works. So I am curious to know if the family was in compliance with the law. That doesn't make the decision right, again, bc it's written to include all homeschoolers. But it's scary to see the court system change the law rather than uphold and interpret it.

Andrea Hermitt (5472) 07 Mar 2008 11:10 AM

The family was accused by their children of abuse. Their reasons for homeschooling, as mentioned in the court documents were first because they disagreed with what schools were teaching, later because of deep religious convictions, and it is also recorded in the court document that Dad said he didn't want them in school because there were snitches. I don't think HSLDA would have touched this with a 10 foot pole if the judgment did not affect the entire state.

Valorie Delp (49340) 07 Mar 2008 11:13 AM

Yeah--and they've been very careful about what htey say. They are filing an appeal to "depublish" the ruling and are being very conscientious about saying that it's on behalf of their 13,000 member families in CA.

deedee1231 (4030) 07 Mar 2008 11:30 AM

What I don't understand is why the state of CA can't prosecute for the child abuse/neglect and leave the fact that they are homeschoolers out of the wording of their ruling. It makes me angry that the courts are using a child abuse case to set a precedent about homeschooling while all but ignoring the abuse aspect of the case, especially if that is why this was brought before the court in the first place.

Valorie Delp (49340) 08 Mar 2008 06:33 AM

Because the case at hand was about homeschooling. . .not abuse. The abuse allegations were a seperate issue in a seperate court. I am going to write more on this today.