The decision by the California Supreme Court that there is no constitutional right to home school has raised plenty of hackles.  Most of what I’ve read, ranging from  lawprof musing to conservative bashing addresses the perceived tentacles of the decision; its policy failings or its unwarranted governmental insertion into the realm of the parent.  This has been a decision that everybody, except teacher unions, can hate.

As is usually the case, the wagging fingers of blame ignore some of the substantive issues faced by the court.  Language in the California Constitution, coupled with statutory language the smells like it was written by Eugene Joseph McCarthy on a really happy day, makes it clear that compulsory education is the rule.  We’re not talking about a court ignoring precedent, or shirking off stare decisis, here.  The California Constitution says so.

So rather than harp on the “activist judge” scam, when they hate them just as much for not being activist when they want a different outcome, let’s look to the one salient point.

There was a time when the idea of compulsory public education was hailed as one of the most remarkable benefits to being American.  Every child would receive an education.  Every child would have the opportunity to grow up to be president.  No longer were rural children, isolated children, children of the poor or infirm, denied the chance to make something of themselves.  This was America!  The land of opportunity!  Hurrah!

And now it’s not? 

Home schooling has taken on a separate political significance, in light of religious and political views that schools are corrupted by teaching such things as evolution and forcing black and white children to be in the same classroom.  There are plenty of good, legitimate reasons for home schooling as well, but these don’t tend to come up in cases like this, which arose because the eldest of 8 children complained to authorities of abuse by his father.  This was not your average “leave it to beaver” family.

So the fight for a constitutional right to home schooling (in California, but across the nation as people strangely extrapolate the impact of the California Constitution on Iowa and Alabama) has nothing to do with misbegotten family on the left coast, but good, loving families elsewhere who have made a decision that they, not schools, will determine what knowledge belongs in their children’s heads.

On the other hand, public schools have done a less than stellar job of fulfilling their purpose in providing society with an educated and knowledgeable populace.

Given the appalling levels of achievement and knowledge of the products of the conventional system this should not be difficult.  (The first link in the preceding sentence illustrates the abysmal performance of the California educational system; the second reveals the appalling lack of basic knowledge possessed by 17 year old kids.  Examples: less than 50% knew the Civil War occurred between 1850 and 1890; only 50% had any idea what the Federalist Papers were, a third had no idea that free speech was a Bill of Rights guarantee.)

From a policy perspective, I fail to see that anyone has the upper hand here.  All in all, education is a mess.  Why should parents who hold sincere beliefs that they, not teachers or school boards, should have the authority to direct their child’s education? 

But don’t blame the California Supreme Court.  They applied the state Constitution, just as they are supposed to do.  If you don’t like the Constitution, then change it.  If it’s too hard to change it, move to Canada.  That’s if you were educated well enough to know where to find Canada.