You may have heard, but a California judge decided a "controversial" homeschooling case.
I read the opinion and this is my digest of it:
Under California law (emphasis because this does not affect any other states):
1. homeshooling is not a fundamental right.
2. to homeschool your children, the children must be taught by credentialed teachers
3. unless the homeschooling is for religious reasons, then the teachers do not need to be credentialed.
OK, a couple thoughts:
1. I think this is a fair and rational rule. It seems reasonable to require credentialed teachers if you want to teach your kids at home. I frankly see no harm with that.
2. I find the reaction by some social-conservatives very interesting. The very same people who complain about "non-textual rights" in the US Constitution complained that this was an over-reaching government complaining about the parents' right to rear their children.
This latter viewpoint is nothing short of hypocrisy. Parents' rights are not specified in the constitution. So by asserting this "non-textual right of privacy", you open the door for all those other nontextual privacy rights, i.e., all those evil "special" rights for abortion and gay marriage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree. If we are going use the constitution to establish parents rights then we need an amendment that specifies this.
I am currently in favor of a similar amendment. But this is primarily a concern about international movements.
I am more satisfied with the cultural impact required to get state law modified. Let the legislatures to their work at making law.
It is time for the judges to refrain.
Well....I would say that we already have an amendment for that - the 9th. Look it up.
ok, I looked it up. I need some instruction. And you are the guy.
Post a Comment