alt.education

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
news:Hb-dnUI6vqGakn7anZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
>> news:AM6dnTW5g7YFZ3_anZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody, well not anybody I know, "chooses" to ignore Biblical law wrt
>>>> dealing with insolent children.
>>>
>>>
>>> It ain't the courts. Your beef is with your elected officials.
>>
>> I do not agree. My legislators are not telling me I can't spank my kids.
>
> Yes, they are. If it wasn't written as a crime in the statutes, you could
> do it.
>
>> And, if they are telling me that, they are telling me in response to
>> court decisions that call pretty much any sort of discipline as abusive.
>
> Citation?
>
>> You could be right, but my instinct is that legislative action in this
>> arena is reactive to judicial review.
>
> Judicial review begins with legislative (or executive action). The only
> way you could be right if is the legislature passed a law permitting
> spanking, and the court stepped in and invalidated that law. I'm
> confident there is no such case.
>

Well, when I was a kid, my parents spanked me when they felt I needed it.
Somebody somewhere at sometime challenged a parent's right ot spank, the
court ruled that spanking was intolerable and the legislature created a law
to codeify the ruling.



>> In my example of the homeschool and CPS, the courts clearly jumped into
>> an area of state law that is covered and works -- schooling -- and forced
>> a family to send kids to school, and the court did it in such a manner
>> that all home schools in the state may be shut down. The court is doing
>> this, not the legislators.
>
> In this case the legislature passed statutes which required schooling at a
> public school, private school, or tutored elsewhere (including the home)
> by a state-licensed teacher.
>

This is not true. A home schooled child (as of today) can be taught by a
parent or legal guardian that registers with the state that they are a home
school, and they use a cirriculum administered by the proper authority
(where the gamit of authority is too broad to specify here, and makes no
difference). It is the court that is dictating the credentials that a home
school must have. The state already has its rules, and it likes them.

The state is happy with the home school laws that we have -- the case is a
California case, and the California Department of Education is not happy
with the ruling.


> None applied to the parents and child in question, and so they sued asking
> the courts to invalidate the legislature by declaring a Constitutional
> right to home schooling.
>

That is patently false.

The ONLY issue in the case was child abuse. Period. CPS never challenged the
schooling, never.

The only goal of CPS, the plaintiff, was that it wanted two of eight kids
observed by the school teachers and administrators for signs of abuse that
the CPS case workers were not equipped to spot. That is, CPS is so
overwhelmed that its workers can not perform the inspections necessary to
preclude abuse, so it insisted that the school be used as a surrogate.
Nobody in this case ever challenged the quality of the education that the
children were getting.

PS
The case is about parents and 8 children. One child charged abuse that could
not be supported by any evidence that CPS could find. CPS wants two of 8
children in a school, the remaining 6 are still being home schooled. Of the
two that are being forced to a brick & mortar building (public or private
school, CPS does not care and the ruling does not specify as far as I know),
neither is the one that raised the abuse claim, that child is still home
schooled.