An important correction via the Ace of Spades:
The short version: The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.
So the California Despair-O-Meter drops back down to a mere 7. And we all get a slap on the wrist for trusting the LA Times.
Home schooling is illegal in California. Most home schoolers are Christians and all they know to do is fearmonger. Just look at this as an example!
Comment by Larry — 9 March, 2008 @ 20:27
I approved Larry’s comment because it’s a fine example of a number of fallacies in a compact space.
The first sentence assumes facts not in evidence. As this very post made clear, home schooling is not illegal in California. It may or may not be true that most home schoolers in California are Christians, but it’s a straw man argument all the same. Then he conflates a (surprisingly well-made) spot about legislation with home schooling. That’s a non sequitor.
Larry: Home schooling is chosen by a lot of people, and for very good reasons. It’s nuts to think that a government-run classroom presided over by a union worker is going to do a better job than a parent. What sort of superhuman teacher would it take to know twenty little strangers better than parents know their kids? And what makes you think school is a proper function of government?
I’m not a Christian, yet I support home schooling and don’t want homosexual propaganda forced on kids at school. Am I a fearmonger?
Comment by buttle — 9 March, 2008 @ 21:17