California Appeals Court and Homeschooling

Homeschooling families in California and thus all across the nation may be affected by the disheartening decision by the Second District Court of Appeal (”Feb. 28) that in order to teach a child at home, a parent must hold teaching credentials or risk criminal complaint. Around 166,000 children are homeschooled in California. The reasons vary, but many of the parents object to concepts such as “alternative lifestyles” that are frequently taught in state-run schools.

Why would the government object to a parent’s opting out of its system? Such parents still pay state taxes plus any costs involved in homeschooling. The children are tested and studies show that they usually surpass students educated in traditiional schools.  Do state schools really believe they are offering a product that engenders loyalty and affection? Statistics are dismal.

Now thousands of homeschooling parents who hold degrees or valuable experience in science, English, or math will not be qualified to teach their own children at home. But Johnny Sue is. Johnny Sue took the 12 hours of education courses and did a stint as a practice teacher to earn the state’s stamp of approval. She had to maintain a C average.

I hold these critical credentials — a teaching certificate issued by the State Department of Education.  I have it and I’m not sorry that I have it because it opens doors. But the point is that the courses required for certification were generally insignificant, poorly taught, and self-serving. For my master’s degree I eschewed grad courses in education and earned the pure master’s in English.

As far as teaching goes, many of the English classes were helpful, but my own reading, research, and planning, along with leadership and a good teaching environment were paramount — far above the easily dismissed fluff from ed courses.  Good teachers in any school are never judged by whether they hold the paper; they all do if it’s public. (In their defense, many state boards allow for “emergency certificates” for highly qualified individuals to cover shortages or in other special circumstances. Maybe this will be the out for parents.)

This need not be difficult. Children belong to parents, not the state. Parents bear the responsibility for educating their children. From there leave in place the exit testing that public school students take. Parents, like schools, are aware that college entrance testing looms before them; they want to succeed. And homeschooling parents, those that I know or have read about, are unselfishly dedicated to their children’s education. And they’re trustworthy.

In an article from the AP, the unnamed reporter states that “the appeals court said, the trial court had found that “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.”

These statements are disturbing. They come from the government. Objections abound: for number 1 — Parents must decide with whom their children should interact and those that should be avoided. 2 — Define “amiss.” This language is too vague. Could amiss be a spanking or a church? 3 — The choice of a word with the religious connotation of “cloistered” is troublesome. Again, who defines the broader world for the family?

It’s too bad that many of our citizenry don’t know the role of government because that’s the real issue here. It’s an election year. Education issues don’t seem to be on the front burner, but they make a good place to test a candidate’s philosophy.