Today Dr. Mohler published a brief commentary on a California Appeals Court’s recent decision declaring that parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children. Dr. Mohler seems critical of this decision, but I think his criticism is based on an inaccurate understanding of the ruling. I will briefly outline my view here.
Dr. Mohler expresses disagreement with the claim that parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children. He writes:
The words, “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” is nothing less than explosive…This is a controversy that demands the attention of all parents. After all, if parents have no constitutional right to educate their own children, what other aspects of the parent’s choices for their own children lack protection? This question reaches far beyond educational decisions.
I understand the desire to express disgust with a ruling whose result one may disagree. But we must be very careful when assessing the ruling that we are not letting our particular policy preferences stand in the way of analyzing the decision on appropriate grounds. It is not true that everything one might think is a good idea is necessarily a constitutional right, and that is the case with many, many issues. Allowing for homeschooling may be a good idea, but that does not make it a constitutional right.
It must be noted that saying, “parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children at home” is not the same thing as saying “it is unconstitutional for parents to educate their children at home.” The former asserts that homeschooling may be allowed, but is not required by the constitution. The latter asserts that homeschooling may not be done. The court held the former, and that holding places in the hands of the legislature the ability to provide whatever means of education it chooses.
We must resist the temptation with all due force to hope that a court will declare homeschooling as a constitutional right when the relevant constitution does not declare as much. Many state constitutions delegate broad authority to the state legislature to determine what education policies will be enacted in the state, and that seems to be the case in California. It is very common to hear people decry judicial activism; but it is peculiarly interesting to hear the same people suggest that judicial activism should be employed to reach results they feel are best.
Dr. Mohler’s criticism is also misplaced when one considers the result of the decision. According to this analysis, it simply is untrue to say that homeschooling parents are subject to criminal penalties as a result of the ruling.
In sum: homeschoolers, TAKE A BREATH. You are not about to be criminally charged for choosing to educate your children at home, as the LA Times and the various commentators I mentioned above imply. You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren’t totally incompetent. The lawyers for these parents and homeschool advocates all over the state are gleefully watching all the outrage this has stirred up, but I think they should be ashamed of themselves for terrifying the parents of homeschooled children.
The sum of this case appears to be that California, by statute, does indeed allow for parents to homeshcool their children provided they follow the prescribed means of seeking that option. The parents in this case did not follow the prescribed means of legally homeschooling their children, and that is why they lost this case.
