alt.education

Jeff Strickland wrote:

>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
> news:c5-dnavnkbgh7HjanZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> You suffer from smoke in your eyes.
>
> CPS argued that the children must be taught by a credentialed teacher,
> but only so far as it was concerned with the two of eight kids that it
> wanted placed into a brick & mortar school, not a home school.
>
> The credentials of the parents were called into question, that is clear.
> But the quality of the education that the children got was never an
> issue.

Again, you are factually in error. Are you going to ever read the
decision? Quoting again from the decision:

"The attorney representing the younger two children asked the juvenile
court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or private
school. The dependency court declined to make such an order despite the
court’s opinion that the home schooling the children were receiving was
“lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,”"

The *only* reason the lower court did not make the order was they found
a Constitutional right to home schooling and thus overruled the
legislature. This court reversed that finding of law and allowed the
legislature's rules to stand.

> If CPS made a claim that the children were getting a bad education at
> the hands of uncredentialed parents, then I would agree with your agrument.
>
> But the assertion I have made is that the legislature and California
> State Department of Education allow for home schools and give specific
> guidelines for establilshment and operation of a home school, and the
> family met the rules. This is a fact that nobody disputes.

How many times do I have to quote from the ruling before you stop
repeating this bald-faced lie?

> The courts, not the legislators, have shut down a home school that
> everybody that cares about such things was happy with. The courts are
> forcing the legislators react to a ruling, which is the point I was
> making when I got into this with you.

I have cited for you over and over again the facts, and those facts
demonstrate you are factually wrong.

> Background History
> A family in Sunland Christian School (SCS) dealt with allegations from
> the Department of Children Services (DCS) through the Juvenile Court.
> The judged closed the case handing down a favorable decision for the
> family allowing them to continue homeschooling. The DCS worker closed
> their case.
> However, the court appointed lawyers for the children didn't like the
> ruling and appealed to the California Court of Appeals. During this
> process, no new evidence or testimony could be heard and the court made
> a decision based on the information, evidence and process of the lower
> court. Their decision indicated parents do not have a constitutional
> right in the State of California to determine their children's education
> and deemed that no form of homeschooling is illegal > is a mis-statement, the word here should be "legal"> in the state.
>
>
> TRANSLATION
> CPS lost, and homeschooling was ruled to be proper and allowable. The
> lawyers (CPS) for the children appealed their loss. The case is not
> about the quality of eductation, it is about the reach of CPS.
>

Nope. As I quoted above, the *only* reason CPS lost in lower court was
that court found a Constitutional right to home schooling even though
they found in this case the schooling was "lousy", "meager" and "bad".

Josh Rosenbluth