
We had hoped to conclude the ongoing virtual open house tour of the Institute today, but headlines have necessitated an interruption of that plan.News comes out of California of a court decision that threatens home schooling in that state. This is no mere lower court decision — it is an appellate court decision. Click here to read the decision: links.sfgate.com/ZCQR
Recognizing that the greatest advances of the anti-family forces in our national history have come via the judiciary, the Institute thus pauses to consider the conflict between historic Christian teaching and the California court system.
Two recent catechisms of the Catholic Church strive to put in writing what the Church has affirmed over the past two millennia. The three major branches of Christendom are in agreement with a good 90% of what in included in these magisterial documents.
The essential teaching of Christianity as to “homeschooling” is as follows:
2221 … The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable. …
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. ….
Source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It would appear that the California Appellate Court system is not in agreement with the historic teaching of the Christian faith. Just the opposite, in fact.
The essential holding of the California judiciary is as follows:
“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.
Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals, February 28 in Los Angeles. Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mehomeschool6mar06,0,7343621.story?track=ntothtml
The parents at issue may not have been the best of caregivers. They were homeschooling their eight children and one of the oldest filed a report with the state alleging child abuse. The parents deny these charges. Our hearts go out to these parents. We live in perilous times. Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1720697,00.html?xid=feed-rss-netzero
Let us assume, however, for the sake of argument, that the parents are monsters. That they did all that was alleged against them and more. Do such “hard cases” justify an end to the right to homeschool?
The Church has already asked and answered this question:
99. To desire, therefore, that the civil power should enter arbitrarily into the privacy of homes is a great and pernicious error. If a family perchance is in such extreme difficulty and is so completely without plans that it is entirely unable to help itself, it is right that the distress be remedied by public aid, for each individual family is a part of the community. Similarly, if anywhere there is a grave violation of mutual rights within the family walls, public authority shall restore to each his right; for this is not usurping the rights of citizens, but protecting and confirming them with just and due care. Those in charge of public affairs, however, must stop here; nature does not permit them to go beyond these limits.(Rerum Novarum, n. 14)
Source: http://www.thesocialagenda.org/
Nature itself calls out against the California appellate court decision? Such appears to be the teaching of the Church, which is slow to catch up with the demand of our modern bureaucratic state. (No apology necessary.) The argument can be made, based upon the teaching above, that the California court’s determination that parents have no “right” to home school their children is not only a blatant rejection of church teaching, it is a rejection of the Natural Law. If pushed to the obvious conclusion (and some will so push) the end of the court’s holding is that parents have no rights as to the education of their children. The state’s interest trumps parental “rights,” comrade.
Homeschool Legal Defense Association’s founder Michael Farris, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on homeschooling and the law, has r
ecently written that “The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.” Mike wrote this before the California court seemed to conclude that parental rights are creatures of statute. The state giveth, the state taketh away.
Real conflicts of conscience are now visited upon the homeschoolers of California. The question now becomes who will prevail, the parents or the state? What teaching will win out – the teachings of Christ’s Church or the teachings of modern man? Whom will they obey, the teaching of the Lord or the teaching of the court?
The California Appellate Court’s core holding is worth repeating, this time with the notice of impending “re-education” included:
“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. “Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.”
Stalin had a similar program and so did Mao and Castro.
The California court ended with the implicit threat of incarceration or family separation:
“Additionally, the [homeschooling] parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrolment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt.”
This is an implicit threat of incarceration or a taking of the children from the home for such would be the only orders left to the court if parents refused to pay the fines leveled by the court as civil sanctions.
That said, it must be noted that the court decision does not slam the door to homeschooling in toto, and thus brings to the fore a discussion what standards the court can place upon homeschooling parents. Quoting from the Time Magazine article, the California court “ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools – or at home by mom and dad but only if they have a teaching degree.”
Thus, according to the same source, “[p]arents of the approximately 200,000 home schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms – and go back to school themselves, if they want to continue teaching their own kids.”
The ArchAngel Institute stands with those California parents and California bureaucrats facing difficult decisions. One family interviewed plans to leave California rather than bow to its law. Time Magazine notes that Jack O’Connell, the government bureaucrat charged with ‘rounding up” non compliant homeschooling parents, “now faces the potential crisis of dealing with tens of thousands of truants.” The descendant of Irish ancestry (how ironic), when asked what he would do in the face of the ruling replied “I honestly don’t know,” adding that his department is reviewing the case. O’Connell further noted that “There is some angst in the field.”
Those with a sense of history recognize angst as an understatement in this situation. The Institute ends this special report on a section of the Catechism that has great relevance to the California conundrum:
2229 As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators.38 Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.
Source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Postscript: We are delighted to have attracted a comment and site visitors from the Great White North. Canada knows too well the dangers of runaway statism. We welcome the insights of our Canadian cousins. Especially when they are as well stated and well reasoned as the comment below.