Court says parents do not have
right to home school children

By Lori Bledsoe
The Alpine Sun

     The February 28 decision made by the Appellate Court, attacking home schooling as a viable source of education for children, has been the source of buzz all about town. The ruling states that parents do not have the constitutional right to home school their own children. According to a document from the Law Offices of Spector, Middleton, Young and Minney LLP., this case originated as part of a child welfare and abuse allegation involving one family of eight children enrolled in the Sunland Christian School, a charter school.
     In the recorded publication of the filing, the attorney representing the younger two children in this case, asked the juvenile court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or private school. The dependency court declined to make such an order even though in the court’s opinion they (the children) received “lousy”, “meager” and “bad” education.
     The court also recognized that if the children were involved in a traditional school they could interact with people outside the family, there would be people who could provide help if something was amiss in the children’s lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ “cloistered” setting. This isolated case has caused waves in our home schooling communities.
     In Alpine, we have two major and apparent home schooling facilities. Both Mountain View Learning Academy and Alpine Academy have both received confirmation that this court decision will not affect their students who are enrolled in each facility.
     The ruling seems only to be targeted at families who are home schooling without enrolling their children in a state supervised and approved school setting, such as a district-run home schooling facility, or a charter school. The decision is calling for parents who home school outside a state supervised facility must have a valid teaching credential.
     This decision states: “In obedience to the constitutional mandate to bring about a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence, the Legislature, over the years enacted a series of laws.
     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.”
     This decision also states that “No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonable to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character ad patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.”
     “I wish the government would not intrude, parents who have made the choice to home school, are working in the best interests of their children,” says Gary Juleen, director of Alpine Academy.
     Joel Anderson has called this action misguided in a press release. He says, “The misguided action of the Second Appellate Court denies California parents primary responsibility for the own children’s education and violates their special role in raising their children.” Anderson says, “We do not need new legislation to resolve this, but simply for the Supreme court to allow home schooling to continue as it has.”
     Two major firms have already stood up to address this concerning situation. The Pacific Justice Institute has agreed to represent the Sunland Christian School, aggressively fighting to preserve the rights of over 166,000 home schooled students.
     The Home School Legal Defense Advocates are also entering the fray. Both PJI and HSLDA have petitions on their websites to de-publish this decision and support home schooling in California.

 E-mail the Editor