Tuesday, August 12, 2008

California's 2nd Appeals Court says "Oops" on home school ruling

This is a couple of days old, but the California 2nd Appeals Court has reversed itself on its earlier home schooling.


Anonymous said...

Blame the legislators for inconsistency. Based on the below, as a judge, I would probably rule against home school and force the legislature to straighten out the mess it has made.

One could use the same argument to rule that since the IRS states that criminal earnings are taxable then criminal activity must be accepted by the government and is not illegal.

from MC's reference:
In 1929, however, home schooling was amended out of the law, and
children who were not educated in public or private schools could be taught privately
only by a credentialed tutor. Case law in 1953 and 1961 confirmed this interpretation,
and specifically concluded that a home school could not be considered a private school.
While the Legislature could have amended the statutes in response to these cases, to
expressly provide that a home school could be a private school, it did not do so.
Thus, as of that time, given the history of the statutes and the Legislature’s
implied concurrence in the case law interpreting them, the conclusion that home
schooling was not permitted in California would seem to follow. However, subsequent
developments in the law call this conclusion into question. Although the Legislature did
not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit home schooling, more recent
enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition
that home schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private
schools. Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in
California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools.
Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of home
schooling, by exempting home schools from requirements otherwise applicable to
private schools.

Anonymous said...


oh no, another case of misattribution