California Court Reverses Self On Home-Schooling

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought for sure we had a thread about the original decision in this case, but I can't find it so I guess not.

Back in February, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal ruled that home-schooling was illegal in California unless the parent had a teaching certificate. The decision created quite an uproar, and (in a rather remarkable and rare development) the same three-judge panel has reversed itself after granting a petition for a rehearing, and has ruled that home-schooling should be allowed after all. The court essentially held that despite the fact that the legal precedent (dating back to 1953) prohibits homeschooling by a non-accredited parent, this "has been effectively overruled in the real world."

A good decision, I think.

Homeschooling OK, appeals court says

[solicitr]

What I find absurd is the teaching certificate requirement's existence- so that a University chemistry professor, for instance, isn't allowed to teach high-school chemistry.

[Lalaith]

Those of us in the homeschooling community have been watching this carefully, as well as doing what we could to make our opinions known.

Needless to say, I'm very pleased with this decision!

Interestingly, there are several "attacks" to homeschooling going on right now. This California case was a major one. HSLDA is also keeping us informed of the ongoing case in Germany.

One that is hitting closer to home is the fact that the Ohio Department of Education is currently reviewing our homeschool laws. This is something they've not chosen to do for almost 20 years, so we're all quite nervous. (I guess they have the option to review them every 5 years, but they have not chosen to do so until now.)

There was an open comment time, and I think they received over 9000 comments. I'm not sure if that's a lot or not. It seems a little low to me. We were urged to tell them to simply leave the regulations as they are. We didn't have enough support among their ranks to push for any type of loosening of the regulations.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd really support that anyway. Sure, it would be great if I didn't have to do a blasted thing, but that's me. And I know I'm being responsible and actually teaching my kids, but I know there are people out there who would abuse the freedoms. So I'm in favor of keeping the status quo. Ohio is a middle of the road state when it comes to homeschool regulations.

So long as they don't make the regulations more difficult, then I'm fine.

The other "attack" is not specifically against homeschoolers, but it's something C_G has posted on at b77.

College Doesn't Have to Accept Credits

A federal judge in Los Angeles has thrown out the remaining claims of Calvary Chapel Christian School, which sued the University of California alleging university officials rejected some courses for credit because of their Christian viewpoint.

U.S. District Judge James Otero said in a summary judgment ruling released Friday that the school had failed to show evidence that UC officials had violated the First Amendment rights of the five Calvary students who sued along with the school and the Association of Christian Schools International.

Robert Tyler, an attorney who represented Calvary, said Friday night that the decision will be appealed.

"We always believed we were going to have to get up in the higher courts before we would get a ruling that would be favorable to us," said Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a religious liberty law firm in Murrieta.

In March, Otero threw out the Christian school's broader claims that UC policies were unconstitutional on their face. Friday's ruling concerned Calvary's claims that the policies were also unconstitutional as they were applied in the review of several classes.

Otero wrote that Calvary "provided no evidence of animus" on the part of university officials, whom he said had a "rational basis" for determining that the proposed Calvary courses would not meet the UC college preparatory requirements.

Both professors concluded that neither the A Beka nor the BJU Biology texts are appropriate for use as the principal text in a college preparatory biology course. (Ayala Decl. Ex. A, at 28; Kennedy Decl. Ex. A, at 20.) In making this finding, Professor Kennedy reiterated Professor Sawrey's initial conclusion that "the problem is not . . . that the creationist view is taught as an alternative to scientific explanations, but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately." (Kennedy Decl. Ex. A, at 7.)

Plaintiffs offer little admissible evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs' Biology expert, Dr. Michael Behe, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. (Watters Decl. Ex. U.) However, Professor Behe "did not consider how much detail or depth" the texts gave to this standard content. (Watters Decl. Ex. U ¶ 4.) Therefore, Professor Behe fails to refute one of Professor Kennedy's primary concerns that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately.

At the risk of this becoming a monster post, here is what I wrote on b77:

Well, what concerns me is that the curricula they mentioned is very popular in Christian schools and with Christian homeschoolers. I mean, we're not talking about some obscure text printed by Joe Schmoe in his basement, though there are plenty of those. We are talking about A Beka and Bob Jones--two giants in the Christian curricula market! (Though, for the record, I don't like either one! )

I can sort of see their side of things on the science texts, though I still don't agree with the decision. The decision regarding history, however, is very troublesome. You don't like my interpretation of history? Well, I don't like yours. :shrug: I mean, I see this as an end-around on Christians (and it could be any religious group or any private group or family who has a different worldview than whatever is currently popular).

You don't want to attend our public schools and learn according to our secular, humanistic worldview? Okay, fine, but then we're going to say that your curricula is not good enough, and, therefore, your education is invalid.

I think that if a student can pass a test, do well on his SAT/ACT, prove himself to be a good citizen through whatever hoops he has to jump through, then that should be the criteria--not whether an institution happens to think that Bob Jones teaches history from a Christian worldview. Well, duh, of course they do. (And, honestly, to deny that this country was founded on Christian principles is absurd, but that is a different discussion.)

History, especially, is prone to being taught through the lenses of whatever view is currently in vogue.

Now, science, well, I know A Beka, but I haven't looked at the higher sciences to see how they treat the topic of evolution, i.e., how accurately they explain it. I think that if they give an accurate definition and explanation, then they are allowed (as a Christian text) to do what they want from there.

I know that will freak people out, and I know that people will abuse that. But I don't think the rights of people who won't abuse that should be curtailed in the theory that some people might.

Interestingly, I will be teaching biology this fall to the junior high kids in our co-op. I don't know how in-depth I'll be able to go, but I plan to give them an accurate description of evolution, as they would get it in a secular text. And I plan to discuss the fact that many Christians believe in evolution and all of that. IOW, I will do my best to present it as neutrally as possible. They need to know the facts behind this topic, not the hype (from either side).

ETA: I guess I should say that Ohio's law requires parents to provide the following: "Assurance that home education will include the following, except that home education shall not be required to include any concept, topic, or practice that is in conflict with the sincerely held religious beliefs of the parent." It goes on to list the following subjects: language, reading, spelling, and writing; geography, history of the US and Ohio, national, state, and local government; mathematics; science; health; PE; fine arts, including music; first aid, safety, and fire prevention.


Lali

[River]

University professors by and large have no idea how to actually teach, solictr.

[sauronsfinger]

Does society have a right to insist that something as important as the education of children be regulated through the government?

That would seem to be the key question.

Or perhaps the education of children - our future adult citizenry - is less important than the selling of real estate or the cutting of hair?

[Dave_LF]

The issue isn't whether the institution "likes" the curricula or what perspective it is taught from; it's whether the information presented is backed by evidence and supported by professionals in the field. To requote your article:

Professor Kennedy reiterated Professor Sawrey's initial conclusion that "the problem is not . . . that the creationist view is taught as an alternative to scientific explanations, but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately." (Kennedy Decl. Ex. A, at 7.)

Plaintiffs offer little admissible evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs' Biology expert, Dr. Michael Behe, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. (Watters Decl. Ex. U.) However, Professor Behe "did not consider how much detail or depth" the texts gave to this standard content. (Watters Decl. Ex. U ¶ 4.) Therefore, Professor Behe fails to refute one of Professor Kennedy's primary concerns that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately.

And here is why they rejected the history text:

For instance, a UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups."

Another university professor agreed that the textbook from Bob Jones University shouldn't be used for a college-preparatory history class because it didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover "major topics, themes and components" of U.S. history, Otero wrote.

As for the assertion that public schools exist in order to spread the secular humanist worldview; that boggles my mind so much I don't even know where to start. What the schools are supposed to do is avoid promoting any particular religion. Not promoting religion does not equate to promoting nonreligion any more than bald is a hair color.

[Lalaith]

I did not say that the "public schools exist in order to spread the secular humanist worldview." Please don't put words in my mouth.

And, yes, I quite understand the distinction being made with regards to the science curricula in particular, i.e., they are saying it's not in-depth enough. I ask, Who gets to determine that? Are we now going to examine every textbook to see if it adheres to some kind of standard? Perhaps that's not a bad idea, but I am apprehensive as to who gets to make those decisions. And I should have the right to opt out.

I know it doesn't seem like there's anything that bad with our current views on life or government, but surely you can see where abuses could come into play. Look at history. Look at governments or even religious teachings/trends that we now view as misguided or wrong. We would probably applaud those people who chose to do or teach what they could outside of that prevailing worldview.

Lest you think this problem of inadequate textbooks lies only with Christian publishers (and perhaps you already don't):

As younger, inexperienced teachers are thrown into classrooms to meet new federal standards, as much as 90 percent of the burden of instruction rests on textbooks, said Frank Wang, a former textbook publisher who left the field to teach mathematics at the University of Oklahoma.

And yet, few if any textbooks are ever subjected to independent field testing of whether they actually help students learn.

“This is where people miss the boat. They don’t realize how important the textbooks are,” Wang said. “We talk about vouchers and more teachers, but education is about the books. That’s where the content is.”

If America’s textbooks were systematically graded, Wang and other scholars say, they would fail abysmally.

American textbooks are both grotesquely bloated (so much so that some state legislatures are considering mandating lighter books to save students from back injuries) and light as a feather intellectually, flitting briefly over too many topics without examining any of them in detail. Worse, too many of them are pedagogically dishonest, so thoroughly massaged to mollify competing political and identity-group interests as to paint a startlingly misleading picture of America and its history.

Textbooks have become so bland and watered-down that they are “a scandal and an outrage,” the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit education think tank in Washington, charged in a scathing report issued a year and a half ago.

“They are sanitized to avoid offending anyone who might complain at textbook adoption hearings in big states, they are poorly written, they are burdened with irrelevant and unedifying content, and they reach for the lowest common denominator,” Diane Ravitch, a senior official in the Education Department during the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, wrote in the report’s introduction.

“As a result of all this, they undermine learning instead of building and encouraging it,” she added.

A textbook case of failure--from MSNBC

Interestingly, this article goes on to basically slam conservatives trying to push for their agenda in textbooks in Texas. (No comments on the opposite situation in California? )

Again, I say as I have always said, to try to say that there is no bias in textbooks is ridiculous. To say that there is no underlying worldview coloring what is taught is just wrong. We can't escape completely from our cultural views. We can try, and we should. But we'll never quite do it.

(And I'm not saying that you or anyone here is saying that specifically.)


Lali

ETA: Fix coding error

[Ellienor]

Well, I don't know much about this issue, but I worry about homeschooled kids. I think that while there are many parents that do teach, take it seriously, and make an effort to make sure their kids connect to the world at large, I think there is a big risk that kids are not being prepared to enter the outside world. But I think that is what many homeschooling parents want....their kids to remain apart from the world.

My neighbors homeschooled their daughter. Fast forward to age 16, she meets a boy at a local festival, and they begin dating. He's in regular school. A few months later, he breaks up with her, and she tried (and almost succeeded) in committing suicide. The chastened parents talked to us later. They said they realize it was a mistake, that their daughter was too isolated, and enrolled her in a private school to finish high school. She's in her early 20s now and is a pretty troubled girl.

One of our secretaries here's brother is a pastor. His wife homeschools their 8 year old. This woman has a history of major depression--this secretary flies out and her parents come out regularly when the wife is having a crisis. I say, get the poor kid out of this environment. Wouldn't he be a lot better off with friends, a community, outside of majorly depressed mom and church?

My 2 cents worth.

[sauronsfinger]

Does society have a right, through their duly elected government, to regulate something as important as the education of children?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ellie, I worry about some homeschooled kids, too. I also worry about some kids who go to public schools. And I worry about some kids who go to private schools, both religious and non-religious. I also think that many kids in all four situations get the "right" education for them. It's easy to point to negative situations and worry that that is the norm. But that applies to all of those different school options.

sf, I definitely think that the society has a right to regulate education, including home-schooling. In fact, part of the decision in the case that I referenced was a call from the court to the California legislature to issue clearer guidelines for homeschooling.

[Dave_LF]

I did not say that the "public schools exist in order to spread the secular humanist worldview." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Well; you did say that public schools teach according to a secular humanist worldview, unless I misunderstood what you meant, or you were referring to just this particular school.

Are we now going to examine every textbook to see if it adheres to some kind of standard?

By all means, yes; IMO. As you point out, religious textbooks are by no means the only offenders.

I know it doesn't seem like there's anything that bad with our current views on life or government, but surely you can see where abuses could come into play. Look at history. Look at governments or even religious teachings/trends that we now view as misguided or wrong. We would probably applaud those people who chose to do or teach what they could outside of that prevailing worldview.

But...we can't just say that anything goes because we might be wrong. If someone is convinced the standards are in error, they should try to change the standards; not throw out the very idea that standards are needed.

Again, I say as I have always said, to try to say that there is no bias in textbooks is ridiculous. To say that there is no underlying worldview coloring what is taught is just wrong. We can't escape completely from our cultural views. We can try, and we should. But we'll never quite do it.

But, in this case at any rate, they've gone to great lengths to emphasize that the problem isn't the worldview or perspective used in the books; it's that too much is missing, incomplete, or incorrect. It's content, not form.

[Lalaith]

Ellie, I agree with Voronwë. I worry about homeschooled kids, public school kids, and private school kids. No education choice is failsafe and no education choice is right for every child. There are advantages and disadvantages to all choices.

I hear a lot of stories that begin like yours, "I knew this kid who was homeschooled...." No offense, but I could begin as many stories about public schooled and private schooled kids that way, too. But I try not to then make general assumptions on a whole system of education based on a few kids I know who had difficulties.

There are particular pitfalls that tend to predominate in homeschool circles, just as there are specific pitfalls that tend to predominate among other educational choices.

Honestly, I don't see isolation as a big problem with the homeschoolers I know. In fact, we tend to socialize too much!

One of the biggest issues I see is a tendency for the kids not to be as adept at teamwork. We take care to teach this to our kids, not only in our homeschool co-op but also in church situations, community activities, etc.

Anyway, just as it might be easy to spot the homeschooled kid in a group, I find it easy to spot the non-homeschooled kids--not in all positive ways either.

But, let me be clear, I am not opposed to public or private education. I think they both have their place; I think they are both valid forms of education. I think both can produce well-educated children. I think no system is perfect, not even homeschooling. I am just of the opinion that people should have the right to choose, and whatever you choose is fine for you. Whatever I choose is also fine.

Ellie, your point here is worth noting:

But I think that is what many homeschooling parents want....their kids to remain apart from the world.

First, you could expand that to parents who send their kids to Christian private schools, too.

Secondly, I would not say that "many...parents" want this for their children; I would say "some."

Thirdly, I would say that is not the best attitude for them to have. The Bible says that we should in this world but not of it. People have different views on what that means exactly, but I do think it means we can't be isolationists. We can't be Amish, iow.

If Christians have a mandate to share the gospel with the world (which we do), then how can we possibly do that if we're not a part of the world? My goal is to give my girls a very strong foundation that will help them navigate this world as adults.

Freddy and I often talk about how many Christians live in their "Christian bubble." (Our term, feel free to use it. ) I think that might be another discussion, though.


Lali

[Lalaith]

I did not say that the "public schools exist in order to spread the secular humanist worldview." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Well; you did say that public schools teach according to a secular humanist worldview, unless I misunderstood what you meant, or you were referring to just this particular school.

What I said is quite different than what you said I said. Saying that the public schools teach according to a secular humanist worldview is different than saying, "Public schools exist to spread the secular humanist worldview." Public schools exist to teach children. That they do so through the prevailing secular worldview is what I am saying.

By all means, yes; IMO. As you point out, religious textbooks are by no means the only offenders.

Okay, who gets to do this?

Do you think that parents have the right to say that they don't want to be part of the public education system?

But, in this case at any rate, they've gone to great lengths to emphasize that the problem isn't the worldview or perspective used in the books; it's that too much is missing, incomplete, or incorrect. It's content, not form.

Wow, but I just see this as such a slippery slope. Put the shoe on the other foot. What if we still lived in a country where Christianity prevailed? What if we were being told, "Your education is invalid because the textbook you used for history didn't talk about God enough. Yes, it mentioned Him, but you didn't go into enough depth about how He blessed this nation, etc."

I wouldn't like that either, btw.

Unfortunately, I have to go. I know I'm not doing this topic justice, and I wish I had more time to sit here and think of more eloquent points to make.

Lali

[Dave_LF]

What I said is quite different than what you said I said. Saying that the public schools teach according to a secular humanist worldview is different than saying, "Public schools exist to spread the secular humanist worldview." Public schools exist to teach children. That they do so through the prevailing secular worldview is what I am saying.

"Secular" is very different from "Secular Humanist", though. The former merely denotes the lack of religion; the latter refers to a specific philosophy. Public schools are definitely (supposed to be) secular, but not Secular Humanist.

Do you think that parents have the right to say that they don't want to be part of the public education system?

They do, but if they later decide to they want to send their child to a public school after all, I think they've sort of forfeited their right to complain if that institution deems that the child's previous private education isn't up to snuff.

Wow, but I just see this as such a slippery slope. Put the shoe on the other foot. What if we still lived in a country where Christianity prevailed?

Oh, I do.

What if we were being told, "Your education is invalid because the textbook you used for history didn't talk about God enough. Yes, it mentioned Him, but you didn't go into enough depth about how He blessed this nation, etc."

Then the thing to do would be to work to change the system. Or failing that, to opt out of it completely, rather than force the Christian school to ignore its standards and make a special case of me (though I suspect if it really came to that, I'd be looking for a new country to live in).

[Primula Baggins]

My brother works in the textbook industry—he's edited whole reading series, written a lot of textbooks and teachers' guides, etc. And he would agree that the quality is, in general, terrible.

He'd say (has said) that the problem is not that there aren't standards; it's that there are too many. A textbook or a series of textbooks (say grades 1-5 social studies, for example) is a huge investment of money and time by the publisher. To get that money back, they want to sell those books to every possible school district. So they write them to meet all of the state standards.

Is it really surprising that a book written to satisfy both the conservative standards of Texas and the liberal standards of California is going to be insipid, noncommittal, overcautious, and dull? My brother would love to write brilliant, engaging textbooks. He can't.

They can't even use real literature in most reading series any more; every "real" story is either not PC enough or too "secular humanist" to pass muster. Instead they have to write "stories" in which what the children can say, do for fun, study in school, and even eat as a snack is tightly specified (no sugar! That's California).

In one series it was explicitly forbidden to show a mother as being at home with her children, or a police officer or firefighter who was a white male. Not one single adult character could be in a "stereotyped" role, and so the world in the stories was, as my brother put it, alien to every single kid who read them. Positive role models are one thing. Not describing anything resembling reality is another.

[Ellienor]

But, let me be clear, I am not opposed to public or private education. I think they both have their place; I think they are both valid forms of education. I think both can produce well-educated children. I think no system is perfect, not even homeschooling. I am just of the opinion that people should have the right to choose, and whatever you choose is fine for you. Whatever I choose is also fine.

I think there has to be limits to "whatever I choose is also fine." We are not talking about your choice for yourself personally, it's also a choice for separate individuals who happen to be your children, but are members of our society whose decisions and contributions or lack thereof will have an impact on society. So I do think it makes sense that society (through the arm of the democratically elected government) takes an interest in how these members of society are educated.

I found this on the web:

The states that have no requirements for homeschooling do not require the parents to initiate any contact. These states include Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, New Jersey and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. Parents are not obligated to contact the school districts to notify them that they will be homeschooling their children.

States that have low general requirements for homeschooling require the parents to notify the school district that they are homeschooling their children and nothing else. These states include California, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Delaware, Washington D.C. and the territory of the Virgin Islands.

I think that is not enough oversight to prevent bad situations, at least in those states.

[Primula Baggins]

In Oregon homeschooled kids have to take yearly assessment tests, and I think that's a decent system. It's pressure, but it's also accountability.

Some public school facilities are also available (homeschooled kids can take band or drama, for example). That may vary by district, but I know our district allows it. One of my friends homeschooled her first several kids for the English half of the Spanish immersion day. That worked for them, though by middle school they were all in school full time. I think she did home school one of her boys in math in middle school, because the school just couldn't teach him at his level, and that was also OK.

On the other hand, one family I know "homeschooled" their three kids in a commune yurt for several years before coming to our town, and the "organic learning style" in which "the child seeks knowledge" left their oldest, age 9, still unable to read. The kids caught up, but I don't think they ever performed up to their abilities.

[solicitr]

Prim: there you have the predictable effect of monopolies.

I think it is far past time we got government out of the education business aside from funding it, through vouchers. What the gods would destroy, they assign to the public sector.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, soli, I'm going to decline to have this argument again.

[Ellienor]

What the gods would destroy, they assign to the public sector.

Can I use my voucher to send my child to a madrassa for education based on the Koran, a la Saudi Arabia?

and the "organic learning style" in which "the child seeks knowledge" left their oldest, age 9, still unable to read.

Sounds familiar! I was in some experimental SWAS "school within a school" program in 3rd through 6th grade in California. They went with that philosophy you mention, Prim. We had to turn in three math skills a week and I learned to just reuse my "skill sheets" on alternating weeks....really! They did have a good library of books, though, so I used to spend hours on the couch reading. I didn't learn geography or any history, either, having no interest in it.

When I went to junior high, I had to have remedial tutoring in math.