• Subscribe to Crisis

  • A Public School Teacher Speaks Out on Homeschooling

    by Eric Pavlat

    Last week an appellate court in Los Angeles County handed down a ruling that may criminalize homeschooling in California. As a homeschooling father of six, this troubles me. My main opposition, though, comes from my experience as a public high school teacher.

     
    Last week an appellate court in Los Angeles County handed down a 3-0 ruling that may criminalize homeschooling in California. As a homeschooling father of six, this ruling greatly troubles me. My main opposition, though, comes from my experience as a public high school teacher.
     
    Let me explain. One of the main reasons we homeschool is socialization. When I was a student in public school, I was talking to my peers about sex by sixth grade, and that was several decades ago. Now, I teach in an inside-the-D.C.-beltway high school. When I walk through those hallways, I hear cursing and insults; I see teenagers flagrantly violating rules about cell phones, iPods, and hats; I observe boys using physical threats and intimidation against others — especially against girls.
     
    This is where children get "socialized"? In what other period of their lives will they interact near-exclusively with people whose birthdates fall within 364 days of their own? In homeschool, they interface with brothers and sisters of different ages, with grandparents, with guests — all while still playing with friends their own ages in co-op, cub scouts, CCD, and play dates. When we go out, strangers sometimes observe that our children are especially polite and friendly. To me, that’s proper socialization, and hope for the future.
     
    Here’s another reason why the California ruling is so egregious. The school where I teach, until recently, missed the government’s "Adequate Yearly Progress" goals several years in a row. We, as the teachers, were partly to blame. (Of course the fault can also go to students’ home lives, the media, the budget, and so on; but the fact is, some of our teachers are doing poor jobs. I’ve seen it at my school in numerous classrooms, and some days I’m even guilty of it myself.) What California’s courts just did is ensure that those parents who are trying to get their students out of a poorly performing school can’t do so unless they can either pay private or parochial school tuition or qualify for a scholarship.
     
    So what strategies are administrators directing teachers to implement to help students improve? There are several:
     
    • Differentiated Instruction, or adjusting one’s instruction to the level of individual students of different performance levels within a classroom.
    • Schools-within-a-School, or keeping a specific group of students together throughout different classes in order to build a sense of community and shared purpose.
    • Mentoring, where teachers are encouraged to form personal relationships with specific students so that they have an adult at the school who cares about more than just their academic performance.
    • Smaller Class Sizes, as students simply don’t learn as effectively when they’re surrounded by 30 peers.
     
    My children at home already receive all of these benefits — personalized instruction, a solid community, a caring adult, a low student-to-teacher ratio — simply by being homeschooled. This California ruling moves students away from homeschooling, just as the latest educational reforms are endorsing the unique strengths of home education.
     
    If the court’s decision holds, the possibilities are grave. Germany has already outlawed homeschooling, a ruling the European Court of Human Rights has upheld. It’s not impossible that other states will follow Germany and California’s lead; quite often, all it takes is one judge to "pass a law" in these times.
     
    Especially dangerous is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a treaty approved by every UN member except the United States and Somalia. This Convention was cited by the German high court in their decision to ban homeschooling. If this treaty were to be approved in the United States, the results could be wide-ranging. According to the U.S. Constitution, a treaty trumps every other kind of law, short of the Constitution itself and its amendments.
     
    In other words, even if every state had in its constitution language expressly permitting homeschooling, and the United States further had a national law protecting it, a court’s interpretation of the UN Convention, simply because it’s a treaty, could ban homeschooling nationwide. It’s imperative, therefore, that we must never ratify this Convention. (The Convention on the Rights of the Child, I should note, is a particular favorite of presidential candidate Sen. Hilary Clinton, and we would be in particular danger if she were elected).
     
    Our family homeschools as a response to God, and the Church teaches that parents have the primary right to homeschool their children (found in Canon Law and Familiaris Consortio). We know that not all families are called to do so, but we prayerfully believe that we are. Were homeschooling to be banned, we’d be prohibited from carrying out God’s will for our family, and that is a violation of our rights ("the freedom to do as we ought").
     
     
    The legal fallout from the California case is still to come, but we can make a few predictions. Court decisions always embolden activists. Just as the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on gay marriage led to additional lawsuits and "civil union" laws, the decision in California could cause other groups to initiate lawsuits and create new laws to "regulate" homeschooling. The politically shrewd California Teacher’s Association has already announced its support for the ruling, with one board member saying simply, "We’re happy."
     
    There is some cause for hope: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out on the side of parents, saying, "This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights then, as elected officials, we will." Is he right? Time will tell.
     


    Eric Pavlat is a board member of Democrats for Life of Maryland, Inc., and a columnist and blogger for
    InsideCatholic.com. For further information on defending your rights as a homeschooler, visit the Home School Legal Defense Association; see also ParentalRights.org’s proposed Constitutional Amendment explicitly delineating the rights of the parent. 

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • Tito of Custos Fidei

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the National Socialist Workers Party, ie the Nazi’s, of Adolph Hitler that initially created that German law that forbids homeschooling? If so, why hasn’t the German government purged something such as this? And why isn’t there in outcry in Germany or Europe. The homeschooling communities in Europe can’t be THAT incompetent to let this go on.

      Secondly, would it be prudent to characterize Senator Clinton’s advocacy of this UN ‘right’ to ban homeschooling as a ‘Nazi’ law? Or is that infantile?

    • Beth

      Having lived in Germany for seven years, I believe the lack of outrage there against the anti-homeschooling law could be that, Germans tend to follow their leadership. They don’t tend to make waves. “If it is a law, well then, it is a law.” (very akin to “dead is dead”) We were “enlightened” about “the law” more than once in those seven years—for playing on a public playground outside the times as listed; for putting our recycling in the giant recycling bin on a Sunday (verboten!)…just to name a couple, there are more. Neighbors there were more than once amazed that we would be against some of our “laws” in America. For those friends, the state knows best. And this really does follow the “serf-dom” mentality found in Europe. We in America are indeed pioneers, explorers and adventurers—at least we used to be!!

    • Rick

      Eric,

      You realize that the Holy See has ratified (granted, with reservations) the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

      “The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are “that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity” (Pope John Paul II, 26 April 1984).”

    • EK Pavlat

      Rick,

      The problem isn’t so much with the convention itself, but with what judges have done and are likely to do with the convention. If we were guaranteed an eternal nation-full of John Robertses, I’d likely support the convention. But since we’re living in reality, I oppose it.

    • Mary Jo Anderson

      Eric,
      the Holy See’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC) is partially due to there being no instrument whatsoever in some countries by which a child is understood as bearing even fundamental rights. In short,the CRC is dangerous if misused, but the Holy See Mission to the UN understands that it a half loaf. (hence John Paul II’s “aimed at” )

      However, the provisions of the CRC are what the general public reads (if they investigate at all). What is unseen is the CRC Implementation Manual –and that is hair raising.

      The USA has not signed the CRC (yet) because our domestic policy already insures basic (and more!) rights to the child –except our unborn, of course.

    • Michaela

      “German law is…” correct – that old law was introduced in 1938, I believe. The reason why it was not abolished so far is, I believe, because of the fact that the German nation is a broken nation. Concepts like honor, sacrifice, patriotism have become taboo concepts. They used to be there, and were terribly abused. The German nation never, never recovered from the terrible two wars she had to suffer through. Now, the German nation is a nation of “me first” citizens, trying desperately to stand tall. We got an inkling of this desire when in one year two major events happened: the election of the first German pope, and the soccer world cup. For the first time in decades there was a joy and a certain healthy pride to be German…. the challenge was and is to use this in a good way. Esp. the Catholic Church in Germany has a long way to go to pick up the pieces and help influence that which formerly was a healthy Catholic culture.

      “Untitled” is also correct – Germans follow the leader without much thinking, and the thinking they typically do do comes from and is influenced by the progressive, anti-American left.

      I am from Germany, happily immigrated into this country over 10 years ago.

      The notion of freedom in both countries is fundamentally different. In Germany you consider yourself free if you are not in jail.
      The idea of the role government should play is also fundamentally different. In Germany the idea and expectation is that government takes care of you (of course, this is laughable!).

      The kind of freedom we enjoy here, the kind that claims that “we are endowed by our Creator by certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are unparalleled in the world and absolutely MUST BE UPHELD!

      Germany does not have that concept (no nation does), and because of this concept fixed in one of the most important documents of this nation, the USA is most definitely superior to all the other nations in the world. The challenge is to act upon it and to uphold this in its totality, meaning including the unborn, disabled and elderly!

    • Mark E.

      As a DC resident and public school parent, your depiction of DC schools has some truth, but our kids are in a safe, vibrant public school here.

      However, you are wrong to parrot the home school association’s paranoid arguments against the Convention on the rights of the Child a threat. It provides a framework and a set of principles, and the United States can guarantee its interpretation and sovereignty through reservations and declarations, just as did the Holy See, including regarding homeschooling and the primacy of the family.

      Your point about the failures of public schools is precisely the reason why the US should ratify the CRC — not to force Americans to follow some UN panel, but to force us to look at whether we are doing the best we can to ensure all children have access to proper education, health care, and safety from abuse.

    • D.B.

      Mr. E, no doubt you are a true believer…HOWEVER, I would not characterize Mr. Pavlat’s views as paranoid. If anything, the radicalized element in the school system has demonstrated that is is capable of all sorts of ridiculous outrages. As someone who has trained in the Public School profession, I would put nothing past the “engineers” of our children’s cirriculum. Such empty assurances were given in the past and proved hollow. The NEA and similiar organizations have not demonstrated a shred of good faith…

    • theorist

      I agree with D.B., let us not think that states should judge in their own case.

    • I think it is telling….

      I have always found it interesting – and telling – that the parents most likely to homeschool are those who have been teachers, esp. in public education systems. I’ve been researching homeschooling since my eldest daughter was born nearly five years ago, reading, talking with parents and students, etc. and have been struck by the sheer number of educators (current and former) amongst the homeschooling communities. Interesting….

    • Norwegian Shooter

      When this article was reposted this January, even the editors didn’t actually read the link they put at the end of the attribution. The California Homeschool Network page is a general update page, so scroll past the first update on work permits to this headline: “Court Ruling: California statutes permit homeschooling!”

      First, the February 28, 2008 ruling was never considered to outlaw homeschooling by the CA Department of Education. See the March 11, 2008 line.

      Here’s another CA DoE statement from the CHN update: “My feeling is very much in line with the governor in that it is a parental choice as to how they will educate their children,” said Chris Bertelli, assistant secretary of education. “To require a credential for a parent that is home-schooling is ludicrous. No other state in the country requires a credential,” Bertelli said. “It would be nearly impossible to enforce and would do so much more damage than good.”

      Second, this ruling was vacated in March: “On February 28th, the court document In re Rachel L. was published. On March 25th, that ruling was vacated, and the California Court of Appeal granted a rehearing, scheduled for June 23, 2008.”

      Third, the rehearing ruling was given August 8, 2008. Of course, homeschooling was not outlawed. The linked update from CHN lists a dozen news articles from that time that state homeschooling was not ruled illegal.

      It is shameful that Inside Catholic would repost this column, especially the added last two paragraphs, which are willfully ignorant of reality.

    • Mark

      I agree that IC should have updated this article, for reasons stated in other comments, and others. Hilary Clinton is no longer a presidential candidate (one good thing that has come out of the last year?). Also, an update on what our current president thinks of the CRC and its prospects for U.S. ratification would have been helpful.

    • theorist

      to be sure, updating the article doesn’t matter from prediction’s standpoint. Homeschooling probably will be outlawed in form or matter at some future point.

    • Norwegian Shooter

      Thank you for updating this article and posting the August 8, 2008 ruling. However, for those that don’t want to read the court’s ruling, it would be helpful to keep the link to the California Homeschool Network’s update page:

      http://www.californiahomeschool.net/ howTo/updates.htm

      Theorist: a prediction like yours should be based on facts. What evidence do you have that homeschooling will be outlawed?