alt.education

"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
>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.

Of course it was. Under California law, any education not delivered
by a credentialed instructor is BY DEFINITION "poor quality", as in
"illegal".

>If CPS had stuck to its mission of protecting children

It did. Protecting children from parents who break the law in
parenting them is its mission. Illegal homeschooling in California is
legally a kind of child abuse.

>If CPS made a claim that the children were getting a bad education at the
>hands of uncredentialed parents,

The law says that they are. CPS doesn't need to make any claims other
than the parents violated the law. CPS isn't supposed to make value
judgements; it is supposed to enforce the law.

>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.

Yes we do. They do not in fact allow for them or give specific
guidelines for them. There have existed loopholes under which someone
who was careful could accomplish some form of homeschooling, but it
has always been about exploiting loopholes in California.

>The courts, not the legislators, have shut down a home school that everybody
>that cares about such things was happy with.

Obviously not the legislature, or they would change the law.
Obviously not CPS (who are you to assume that they don't care about
the children?)

>The courts are forcing the legislators react to a ruling

No. The legislature made the law in the first place. If the
legislature had not made the law, there would have not been a court
case, much less a court ruling.

lojbab