Can Parents Leagally Home School Their Children?Essay title: Can Parents Leagally Home School Their Children?Running Head: INDIVIDUAL PAPER ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: TEACHING V.Individual paper on Constitutional Law: Teaching V. Home schoolingCan a parent illegally home school their child? Yes, according to a recent ruling by a California appeals court. This current ruling is leaving an estimated 166,000 children in the state of California as a probable truant in addition causes their parents the risk and possibility of being prosecuted under the law. The home schooling movement never saw this case coming…or did they?
This recent ruling came from a welfare case between Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, California and the County of Los Angles California. Mrs. Long, the mother, is their educator, but does not hold a valid teaching credential. The Longs have enrolled their children into Sunland Christian School, in L.A. County. By doing this the Longs, children are considered to be apart of its independent study program. Representatives come from Sunland Christian School come to visits the Longs at home every three months during the year. This current act allows the Longs to home school their children, or so they thought.
The District Court of Appeal recent ruling found that under state law parents are required to send their students to a permanent private or public school or have them educated by means of an instructor with the proper degree in the privacy of their own home. Several home schooled children are connected with charter schools or private, like the Longs situation, but others are not. Many home schooling families bypass “truancy laws” (Egelko & Tucker, 2008, p. 7) by telling and manipulating the state that they are functioning privately then only enrolling their personal students. However, an appellate court recently stated that the state law has been clear since 1953, when another court abandoned a similar case concerning s required educational laws in California. These laws required children between the ages 6 to 18 to be present at an accredited school during the day and in by taught by a teacher or instructor who are accredited for that students current echelon of learning.
“California courts have held thatparents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” (Egelko & Tucker, 2008, p. 9). Justice H. Walter Croskey stated during the majority ruling given on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their childrens schooling under the provisions of these 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” (Egelko & Tucker, 2008, p. 9) the judge wrote, quoting a case from 1961 with parallel issue.
Why parents home schoolFor many decades parents have chosen to home school their students for an assortment of reasons. The two most common reasons are thought to be from disappointment with public schools to religious beliefs, where practicing religion is not allowed. Other areas apply as well. For example, some parents and students live where schools are not accessible; many parents are worried about more violent acts taking place these days at school, which was once thought to be a safe place. On the other hand, parents believe that their students can receive a better education through being home schooled. These responses lead one to conclude that home schooling as an activity that provides parents a way to reproduce their lifestyle by controlling the students education.
How the case was brought aboutThe Long family home schooling battle did not start out as an experimental case but as a welfare case. The judge in charge of looking into one of the Longs younger siblings complaint of child abuse by their father, found that not only were the children not being taught up to standard but the Long family refused to have their two youngest students , ages 9 and 7, to be put into a public or private school. Phillip Long claimed that as a parent in the state of California he had the right to educate his students at home and took the necessary steps to do so. The juvenile court judge required the Longs to abide by the law and register their students into a public or privet learning environment.
The Longs in the Case – A new case. The matter settled in an instant and soon after the hearing was called in the case had emerged. We take the full decision below. All parties in the case have sought to protect the privacy and rights of children in our courts. From the start we have sought to protect and protect the children involved from any legal action. Our public schools and community service programs and services are to teach children to be respectful, loving children in an environment in which all our children can thrive. The family courts are to take part in this litigation and to seek to make a fair trial for Phillip Long. However, we are going to be looking to have some of our children out there to be taught at private or public school, as in California, not that in other states which do allow children access to a curriculum or other training in private schools. What we are asking for is that this court be held to be independent and informed. Our community service programs and services are a means by which to make these children feel responsible for their own needs but to also ensure they get the education and skills they need for life in our schools and for society at large. If you may be interested to read further information below, here: http://www.longlawn.edu/news/news/news/article.cfm/story?article_id=12097&ref=article&ref=article
Posted by: Anonymous on April 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM
Posted by: Anonymous on April 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM
“I don’t know a parent or teacher where to go, I really don’t know why we would have children where they were supposed to be taught. When we would see the child, I would go, ‘Mom, what are you doing?’ They would say, I didn’t want kids. Why are you doing that?’ I would go, ‘Well, there are several kids around here that you don’t want.'” My reply: “Oh. They have been there before. They are all in that class. They are trying really hard.” For those who are still not able to read, please read these stories on the Long family home schools. Our main goal was to educate our children, to tell them things they needed to know and then to provide a safe environment so they could enjoy their life. Our case also involved the case of some of the children. The child case I spoke with was a young girl from California named Paige.
I told parents of the case at its beginning, our goal was to get their children to attend a public or privet learning environment. It became the focus of the court when the young girl’s mother, and the mother’s aunt, both in California, filed a lawsuit accusing the Long family of mistreating and neglecting their children. This is essentially your lawsuit. We
The lawsuit is part of a lawsuit against the California State Department of Education and the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DCSES for short). The lawsuit is challenging a “non-discriminatory state-mandated program of kindergarten and secondary education in California, a program that has been used by federal, state, local and local governments to ensure that low-income students receive the educational services they deserve. Specifically, the law requires that federal and state officials meet three conditions: the program should include equal opportunity, and children must be enrolled in such a program to receive their educational benefits; the program must comply with the federal school-based funding law and the state’s public-private funding law; and, the program must, after the program has been officially authorized for two months, follow the program’s initial lead and meet the five requirements in the federal school-based funding law in order to achieve the same level of quality as the programs of those who were in the program at the time of the program enrollment.” The Longs filed a motion to have the matter decided by a California District Court Judge under a lower court exception for the First Amendment case where it was “confined to issue an opinion on the claim of religious freedom which requires that a court or agency may compel, in a variety of administrative administrative or judicial proceedings, an individual’s belief that his or her religious beliefs are in accord with private or governmental government policy.” Under the federal education laws, “religious freedom does not require that any one religion be considered sufficient to establish his or her religion.”[4] “It’s time for our elected officials — who are responsible for providing education, and should be able to determine what is most important to the public — to take a look at this case,” stated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his Department of Education on behalf of the Longs. The lawsuit is being led by two other attorneys representing the Longs, the California Teachers Association (CTE) and the California Public Schools Association (CPPSA).
The Long family has been asking the courts to overturn federal law and state law forbidding public schools from providing education to children who are in physical or mental need. And even the federal government could attempt to stop the California’s policy outright.
Federal law is a law of limited meaning and has long existed to protect and defend educational standards and to prevent other states from enacting similar laws. In its 1977 Basic Standards for Education Act (the “CAEA”). The law had long involved measures to prevent educational gaps of even very small percentages ranging from 12 to 40 percent across all public schools. The law was signed into law in 1978 by then Democrat Governor George Shultz, who then vetoed it after a massive public backlash against the policy.
The law effectively created a loophole for schools like the Longs and other private school students under which a teacher may ask a parent not
The lawsuit is part of a lawsuit against the California State Department of Education and the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DCSES for short). The lawsuit is challenging a “non-discriminatory state-mandated program of kindergarten and secondary education in California, a program that has been used by federal, state, local and local governments to ensure that low-income students receive the educational services they deserve. Specifically, the law requires that federal and state officials meet three conditions: the program should include equal opportunity, and children must be enrolled in such a program to receive their educational benefits; the program must comply with the federal school-based funding law and the state’s public-private funding law; and, the program must, after the program has been officially authorized for two months, follow the program’s initial lead and meet the five requirements in the federal school-based funding law in order to achieve the same level of quality as the programs of those who were in the program at the time of the program enrollment.” The Longs filed a motion to have the matter decided by a California District Court Judge under a lower court exception for the First Amendment case where it was “confined to issue an opinion on the claim of religious freedom which requires that a court or agency may compel, in a variety of administrative administrative or judicial proceedings, an individual’s belief that his or her religious beliefs are in accord with private or governmental government policy.” Under the federal education laws, “religious freedom does not require that any one religion be considered sufficient to establish his or her religion.”[4] “It’s time for our elected officials — who are responsible for providing education, and should be able to determine what is most important to the public — to take a look at this case,” stated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his Department of Education on behalf of the Longs. The lawsuit is being led by two other attorneys representing the Longs, the California Teachers Association (CTE) and the California Public Schools Association (CPPSA).
The Long family has been asking the courts to overturn federal law and state law forbidding public schools from providing education to children who are in physical or mental need. And even the federal government could attempt to stop the California’s policy outright.
Federal law is a law of limited meaning and has long existed to protect and defend educational standards and to prevent other states from enacting similar laws. In its 1977 Basic Standards for Education Act (the “CAEA”). The law had long involved measures to prevent educational gaps of even very small percentages ranging from 12 to 40 percent across all public schools. The law was signed into law in 1978 by then Democrat Governor George Shultz, who then vetoed it after a massive public backlash against the policy.
The law effectively created a loophole for schools like the Longs and other private school students under which a teacher may ask a parent not
The lawsuit is part of a lawsuit against the California State Department of Education and the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DCSES for short). The lawsuit is challenging a “non-discriminatory state-mandated program of kindergarten and secondary education in California, a program that has been used by federal, state, local and local governments to ensure that low-income students receive the educational services they deserve. Specifically, the law requires that federal and state officials meet three conditions: the program should include equal opportunity, and children must be enrolled in such a program to receive their educational benefits; the program must comply with the federal school-based funding law and the state’s public-private funding law; and, the program must, after the program has been officially authorized for two months, follow the program’s initial lead and meet the five requirements in the federal school-based funding law in order to achieve the same level of quality as the programs of those who were in the program at the time of the program enrollment.” The Longs filed a motion to have the matter decided by a California District Court Judge under a lower court exception for the First Amendment case where it was “confined to issue an opinion on the claim of religious freedom which requires that a court or agency may compel, in a variety of administrative administrative or judicial proceedings, an individual’s belief that his or her religious beliefs are in accord with private or governmental government policy.” Under the federal education laws, “religious freedom does not require that any one religion be considered sufficient to establish his or her religion.”[4] “It’s time for our elected officials — who are responsible for providing education, and should be able to determine what is most important to the public — to take a look at this case,” stated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his Department of Education on behalf of the Longs. The lawsuit is being led by two other attorneys representing the Longs, the California Teachers Association (CTE) and the California Public Schools Association (CPPSA).
The Long family has been asking the courts to overturn federal law and state law forbidding public schools from providing education to children who are in physical or mental need. And even the federal government could attempt to stop the California’s policy outright.
Federal law is a law of limited meaning and has long existed to protect and defend educational standards and to prevent other states from enacting similar laws. In its 1977 Basic Standards for Education Act (the “CAEA”). The law had long involved measures to prevent educational gaps of even very small percentages ranging from 12 to 40 percent across all public schools. The law was signed into law in 1978 by then Democrat Governor George Shultz, who then vetoed it after a massive public backlash against the policy.
The law effectively created a loophole for schools like the Longs and other private school students under which a teacher may ask a parent not
This decision would and could affect all kinds of home schooled students, including students enrolled in independent study through charter or Christian schools, a setup similar to the Longs current situation. Teachers tend