I enjoyed Deborah Stevenson's thoughts about the recent California ruling about homeschooling. It is fairly long so I won't quote it all. I liked her conclusion:
----------------
Does this case act as a precedent? Yes, but it is only a precedent for a trial court that may hear a similar case in the future. Even at that, the trial court could find one or more facts to be different in that future case such that it may decide that this Appeals Court case is not of any precedential value. Courts do that all the time. Or, the Appeals Court in another case may declare its decision in In Re: Rachel L. to be reversed at some point in the future. Courts do this less often, but they do it nonetheless.
Or, more importantly the public has other recourse with elected officials. The parents in California, or any state, at any time, regarding any Court decision, may ask the legislature to clarify the state law and to overturn any Court decision.
The point is, contrary to popular belief and fear mongering headlines, as you can see from a careful reading of the Appeals Court’s actual decision, the Court did not rule that “homeschooling in California is illegal”. It would appear that nothing really has changed as a result of this decision. The Appeals Court did not overturn California’s existing statutes. The Court upheld them. If parents comply with the statutes, they are just as free to homeschool as they were before this decision.
----------------
----------
Technorati tags: homeschooling, homeschool, home school, home education, parenting, children, education
No comments:
Post a Comment