Children lose in California ruling
Joy Pavelski
Issue date: 3/27/08 Section: Opinion
One more reason to move to New Zealand: A California appeals court ruled two weeks ago that parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school. One hundred sixty-six thousand home schooled children and their parents now face contempt of court charges, jail and fines.
In its opinion, the second appellate court wrote, "parents do not have a Constitutional right to home school their children," and, "it would be an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated."
Students of a college which rejects government funds and oversight should rage at these words. They assume that the state, rather than parents and students, should control education.
Home schooling families have, for years, answered criticism about everything from social interaction to jean jumpers to educational standards. And, yeah: Many home-schoolers can't make conversation, follow fashion trends or score well on the math section of the SAT (though they also don't know how to score third base without running, apply lip plumper, or text unnoticed during class). This, however, is not an argument about practicality: It's an argument about principle.
Who determines a person's destiny? For this indeed forms during an education. What you think and how you think is irrevocably shaped by your schooling. Children can learn to hold a sister's hand when she cries, and also to inform on their own parents (hello, Hitler Youth). They can imbibe conformity or independent thought. This makes critical who should teach them, and how.
The state should not wield this privilege, first, because states are generally inefficient. Have you ever been to your state's Department of Motor Vehicles? Contrast that with visiting the local hardware store. The further you travel from idea to reality, the worse reality gets. This is why tomatoes you've grown in backyard dirt stomp medicated hydroponic tomatoes flown from Guatemala and waxed to brighten and keep fresh their flesh.
In its opinion, the second appellate court wrote, "parents do not have a Constitutional right to home school their children," and, "it would be an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated."
Students of a college which rejects government funds and oversight should rage at these words. They assume that the state, rather than parents and students, should control education.
Home schooling families have, for years, answered criticism about everything from social interaction to jean jumpers to educational standards. And, yeah: Many home-schoolers can't make conversation, follow fashion trends or score well on the math section of the SAT (though they also don't know how to score third base without running, apply lip plumper, or text unnoticed during class). This, however, is not an argument about practicality: It's an argument about principle.
Who determines a person's destiny? For this indeed forms during an education. What you think and how you think is irrevocably shaped by your schooling. Children can learn to hold a sister's hand when she cries, and also to inform on their own parents (hello, Hitler Youth). They can imbibe conformity or independent thought. This makes critical who should teach them, and how.
The state should not wield this privilege, first, because states are generally inefficient. Have you ever been to your state's Department of Motor Vehicles? Contrast that with visiting the local hardware store. The further you travel from idea to reality, the worse reality gets. This is why tomatoes you've grown in backyard dirt stomp medicated hydroponic tomatoes flown from Guatemala and waxed to brighten and keep fresh their flesh.
Be the first to comment on this story