Utterly Meaningless

I see what you’re saying, but I think it can only serve to be empowering to parents to understand that we weren’t completely at the mercy of the state prior to the passage of legislation that defined homeschooling. Here in NC we had the NC supreme court ruling that home education did not violate the compulsory attendance law. I personally feel that we (“we” meaning the folks desiring to homeschool at the time) should have left well enough alone. Sure, we might have pushed for a waiver of some kind to get around the ‘so many square feet of space per student, health inspection, and lighted fire exits’ rules, but IMHO, we did not need a law defining what homeschooling is and we sure didn’t to be overseen by a branch of the state government. I think that’s where this woman is basing her opinions. There are many states where homeschooling had been thriving for years, then we are being told by HSLDA and others that homeschooling wasn’t “legal” until they came along like a knight on a white horse and saved us all.

The SC would not have ruled that homeschooling violated the CA statutes. They could have ruled that it didn’t satisfy them. If they had, homeschoolers would have had to go sub rosa or face prosecution. An adverse ruling would have meant you (we) were reliant on the legislature to pass a new law.

I’m no fan of a lot HSLDA does. But, in this case, I think they’re more correct than is NHELD.

A couple of comments:
1. From what source are you getting your information? I would hope that you would take the time, as I have, to research the primary sources of information in your state. By primary sources, I refer to the state constitution, state statutes, and state administrative regulations. What does your constitution say about the rights of parents to instruct their children? What does it say about the existence of public and private schools? Did you take your current compulsory attendance statute and trace its history to the inception of the colony? Did you do the same for your state’s compulsory education statute, or the truancy statute, or the statute establishing the right of private schools to exist? Did you then do the same research regarding those statutes’ implementing administrative regulations? If you did not, you only know a portion of the story.

2. Do you know the difference in your state between compulsory education and compulsory attendance laws? Generally speaking, compulsory education means that children must be educated. They can be educated in many ways, in many locations, by many people. They can be educated by their parents, by tutors, by relatives, or by private schools. They may be educated by public schools. The type of education, the location of the education, and by whom the education is provided usually is left to the parents under compulsory education laws. Compulsory attendance usually means that parents are compelled to have their children attend a public school. Compulsory attendance laws generally come into play when parents have not abided by the compulsory education law and caused their child to be educated in a lawful manner other than public school. In those cases, children of a certain age are compelled to attend a public school. To say that homeschooling is a way to “satisfy compulsory attendance laws” under the circumstances I have just described defies logic. That is not to say that there are no illogical laws that are ever adopted, but, if parents and legislators do the research and understand the history of their laws and the policies behind them, perhaps we will have fewer illogical laws. What is more logical to say is that homeschooling satisfies the compulsory education statutes. I have yet to see an actual statute that specifies that parents could homeschool but their children had to attend a public or a private school also. If such a law existed, I’m sure that research into the early history of the education statutes in that state would prove an effective tool in debunking the logic, the wisdom, and the necessity of such a statute.

3. Where did you get your information about the “legal battles in the 60’s and 70’s”? Each state’s legal battles, of course, are unique to their statutes. It is helpful to remember, however, that just as we are having discussions about what the law means now, so, too, were those who were having the legal battles in the 60’s and 70’s. In other words, do you have the evidence from primary sources that the statutes at that time actually outlawed homeschooling, or, are you basing your comments on what you’ve heard or what you think happened? Have you read the briefs filed in those battles and the court decisions that resulted? Have you read the minutes of the meetings of the local school boards or state education departments that were involved in the litigation? If you do, I suspect that you may find that many of those legal battles concerned whether, to what degree, and how to “regulate” homeschooling. Again, there is no doubt that many battles have occurred, and undoubtedly will continue to occur, concerning “regulation” of homeschooling. Battles over “regulation” are far different that a blanket proclamation that homeschooling in those states was illegal. Parents have always instructed their children. New laws have been enacted in recent years that specify that the act of parents instructing their children is newly deemed to be called homeschooling. New laws have been enacted labeling the act of parental instruction as “private schooling”, for example. To say that those laws recently came into existence is appropriate. To say that the act of parents instructing their children at home was illegal before those laws came into existence is not appropriate and not accurate.
I just want people to be aware of the truth. I want people not to accept my word for it or your word for it. I want people to question all blanket claims. I want people to do their own research for their own sake and for the sake of their children. I don’t want people to be duped by anyone.
There is no need for it. The information is readily available. One just has to make the decision to seek the truth and to find it.

Deborah,

Are you trying to tell us that you “research[ed] the primary sources of information… By primary sources, I refer to the state constitution, state statutes, and state administrative regulations” in all 50 states? Because I did not find in your article that it applied only to CT. No, of course I didn’t research all of that in all 50 states and, I suspect, neither did you.

I do know the general history of the CA laws. Some states always allowed for alternatives to the public schools. Others didn’t. In the ones that EXPLICITLY disallowed alternatives (prior to Pierce), homeschooling would certainly have been illegal. And, even for the ones that allowed for private education, homeschooling might or not not have been legally considered the equivalent.

Your article seems to have extrapolated CT’s possibly unique situation to the entire country. If I have missed that it was CT-specific, I apologize. If not, I stand by my layman’s analysis.

From NC’s state statutes:

Article 26.

Every parent, guardian or other person in this State having charge or control of a child between the ages of seven and 16 years shall cause such child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time which the public school to which the child is assigned shall be in session.

Compelled attendance, not education. And homeschools might or might not have been legally classified as schools. Were they not (as determined by court ruling), homeschooling would have been illegal.

And later in that same Article:

The term “school” as used herein is defined to embrace all public schools and such nonpublic schools as have teachers and curricula that are approved by the State Board of Education.

One could easily argue that under this defintion, homeschooling doesn’t satisfy the CA statute, and that a separate law governing homeschools was required. And so there is one:

Part 3. Home Schools.

No school which complies with this Part shall be subject to any other provision of law relating to education except requirements of law respecting immunization. The Division of Nonpublic Education, Department of Administration, shall provide to home schools information about meningococcal meningitis and influenza and their vaccines. This information may be provided electronically or on the Division’s Web page. The information shall include the causes, symptoms, and how meningococcal meningitis and influenza are spread and the places where parents and guardians may obtain additional information and vaccinations for their children. (1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 891, s. 1; 2004‑118, s. 6.)

So, a homeschool that doesn’t test annually is illegal, as is one in which the persons providing academic instruction do not hold a high school diploma.

Daryl raises a very good point about something being “legal”, yet being illegal for all intents and purposes if a state court system rules that private (or home) schooling “doesn’t satisfy” compulsory education requirements.

That would be yet another form of pandering to teacher unions.

I don’t have time to dig out the references now, but I have read a couple accounts of parents who spent time in jail over the homeschooling issue. At one level doesn’t this mean that some government organizations considered homeschooling illegal? Is this the difference between de facto and de jure? Maybe there wasn’t a law against homeschooling, but the reality was that for awhile some state governments thought it was illegal?

Daryl…

You asked if I had researched the primary sources of information in all 50 states.
I have researched the primary sources in many states, but not all 50 states.
In my article, I never stated that I had done so.

If you look at the article again, I am quite sure you can see that I began it by discussing the beginning of the human race. I emphasized that in the beginning, of course, it was not illegal for parents to instruct their own children. I emphasized that this is the natural course of the human race.

I then described the beginning of the modern public school system. I emphasized that the emergence of the public school system also did not negate the natural and legal ability of parents to instruct their own children.

I then addressed the early days of this country, specifically, in New England. I have researched the primary sources in this area. This is the origin of our country. This is how it all began. Parents educated their children. Some public schools also existed. Compulsory attendance laws came much later. Those are verifiable facts. Hence, I stand by my statement that it was never “illegal” for parents to instruct their own children.

As time passed, were parents compelled to have their children attend school? Absolutely. Were parents taken to jail if they failed to comply? Undoubtedly.

Each time that occurred, however, the question that must be asked is, “Why did it occur?”

Was it because in the beginning of that state’s history, it was illegal for parents to instruct their children?
Or, was it because as time passed, laws were adopted that, at some point, made it illegal for parents to instruct their children?
Or, was it because laws were adopted stating that the only way parents could educate their children was in public school?
Or, was it because the government authorities who attempted to compel parents to attend public school relied only on the compulsory attendance laws and did not consider that parents may have had the legal right to instruct their own children under another law, such as a compulsory education law?
Or, was it because although there was a law that allowed parents to instruct their own children, there were other laws that regulated when, where, and how that instruction was to take place and those parents arrested did not comply with those regulations?

There is any number of reasons why parents were fined, arrested, or jailed, and those reasons may vary widely from state to state.

It is important to know the facts of each instance, and to apply those facts to the law as it existed at the time of the incident. It is important to apply the facts not just to one law, but to all relevant laws as they existed at the time of the incident.

That was also part of the point of my article. Until and unless parents look at all of the relevant laws in their state, and the history of those laws, they cannot truly know whether or not the government’s claims are accurate, valid, or truthful. Legal battles occur daily, not just in the field of education, but in other fields as well, when a government official claims that someone is not in compliance with a law, yet, the government official has quoted or relied upon only a portion of the law. Government officials often take a portion of one law and attach it to a portion of another law and claim that what results is the accurate meaning of the law. Then they demand that someone comply with what they claim to be the “law” under threat of fines or jail. When you actually read the entire statute from which the official quotes only a portion, the context of the entire statute may clarify that the government official’s claim was wholly the opposite of what the law actually stated or intended. When you actually read other relevant statutes, again, what the other statutes say” may clarify that the government official’s claim was wholly the opposite of what the laws actually stated or intended.

This is why an assumption that because there were incidents in which people were arrested, fined, or jailed for “homeschooling” does not necessarily mean that in that state it was “illegal” to homeschool.

Are there states that have adopted statutes that specify when, where, and how parents are to “homeschool” today? Without a doubt. If a parent does not abide by the duly adopted statute regarding “homeschooling” in that state, is the parent instructing the child “illegally”? Precisely. About that there can be no argument. Still, whether someone is in compliance with a valid statute or not does not mean that it was “illegal” for parents to instruct their children before that statute was enacted. The question that must be answered is, “When was that statute enacted and was instruction by parents legal before its enactment?” Even so, the enactment of a statute describing when, where, and how parents may instruct their children is “regulation” of parental instruction. It is not a declaration that the act of parental instruction, itself, is illegal or that it ever was illegal.

This is why it is extremely important for everyone in every state to know what all the relevant laws in their state actually say, and how those laws developed from the inception of the state to the present.

Do I know the history of every law in every state? No. I never said I did. My article was intended to show a brief glimpse into the history of what we now call, “homeschooling”. This is just a new name to a very ancient concept, the concept of parents instructing their own children. The act of parents instructing their own children was not “illegal” in the beginning of our country. Our country began with New England and the thirteen original colonies. That is the history I described.

If you recall from my article, what I said was, “it’s a safe bet that the government in your state never did declare the right of parents to instruct their children as illegal.” Then I exhorted readers not to “take my word for it”. I exhorted them to look up the law in their state and to find out if, in fact, it was “illegal” for parents to instruct their own children. I hope that many people will do just that.
I remain angry, however, when the statement is made, as it has been made frequently in the past, that “It was illegal in all 50 states to homeschool” before some group miraculously made sure that it was legal. That statement is factually inaccurate. Nonetheless, I appreciate the dialogue that the article has sparked. If it has provided impetus for thought, I applaud it. If it has provided impetus for action, so much the better.