June 1, 2023

“Homeschoolers are only good for cleaning toilets”


“Homeschoolers are only good for cleaning toilets”

Postby GaryDeMar » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:04 pm

The title for today’s post is taken from a response to one of American Vision’s daily articles about homeschooling. The respondent is an atheist who claims he can refute any argument raised in defense of the Christian faith. I have irritated him so much by answering his poorly researched responses he sends to me that his true character is spilling out in a public way. His personal emails to me are worse than what I have reproduced here. If you want to know what the world would be like with atheists in control, here’s a little taste:

It’s good that Christians homeschool. We need citizens to clean our toilets and mow our lawns. Perhaps some homeschooled Christians will be able to fill these types of jobs. The rest will be unemployable retards like their parents.

Here’s what I want homeschoolers to do: First, reply to this post and leave a comment describing what kind of work you are doing since you completed homeschooling. Second, send this post and its link to every homeschooler and homeschool organization you know and encourage them to leave a comment at the end of this post describing what they are doing since being homeschooled. Third, I don’t want to exclude those who have graduated from a private or church-related Christian school. You can get in on this as well by adding your comments.

The public school graduation rate is around 65 percent, and in large cities it’s lower as this April 1, 2008 report demonstrates. “New York City has one of the nation’s sorriest graduation rates, with less than half of city high-schoolers earning a diploma on time. . . . Even using the most optimistic calculation of the city’s graduation rate—including kids who earn GEDs and excluding special education students from the formula—only 60% of students graduated in 2006” Test scores continue to fall even though education budgets keep growing. It seems that all we hear from government educators is the need for more money.John Stossel’s 2006 “20/20” report (also see here and here) “Stupid In America: How We Are Cheating Our Kids” is a real eye-opener, especially when he asks South Carolina school official Dolores Wright, “How much money would be right?” Wright answers, “Oooh. Millions. And it would really make it right. . . . The more, the better.”

Is it any wonder that the judicial numbskulls in California and the new fascists in Germany are trying to wipe out homeschooling? They fear its superior product and how it makes public (government) education look so bad, especially when the cost of educating a student is factored in. While homeschooling has a great academic track record (also see here and here), enough so that some of the best colleges in the nation recruit homeschoolers, one of its greatest social benefits is its demonstration of true liberty. Liberals love to talk about freedom of choice as long as that freedom does not include the freedom to educate their own children. It would have been OK to kill the child while he was still in his mother’s womb, but once he’s born, he belongs to the State and its educational hacks.


We know that not all atheists think like this infact lots of atheists home educate their children and are our best friends.

California Children Still Considered State Property

“Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.”

And New Zealand…………….


Thomas A. Bowden

California Children Still Considered State Property

In a decision being widely hailed as a victory for parental rights, a Los Angeles County court has confirmed, grudgingly, that homeschooling “is permitted under California statutes.” In so ruling, the court reversed an earlier decision that ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she could get a “legal education.”

But where’s the real victory for parents’ rights? Rights identify actions you can take without permission. A true victory would have been a judicial declaration that parents have an absolute right to control their children’s upbringing–and that they therefore don’t need government permission to educate their children as they see fit.

Instead, as this decision makes clear, California’s parents are expected to accept the status of perpetual supplicants, knees bent and backs bowed down to an all-powerful legislature that can decide at any moment to revoke its homeschooling “permission.”

Neither the state nor “society as a whole” has any interests of its own in your child’s education. A society is only a group of individuals, and the government’s only legitimate function is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including yours and your children’s, against physical force and fraud. The state is your agent, not a separate entity with interests that can override your rights.

To give parents a permanent victory, California would need to make its law consistent with America’s founding principles. Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child’s upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.

Instead, a proper legal system recognizes and protects parents’ moral right to pursue the personal rewards and joys of child-raising. At every stage, you have a right to set your own standards and act on them without government permission. This parental right to control your child’s upbringing includes the right to manage his education, by choosing an appropriate school or personally educating him at home.

Of course, there are certain situations in which government must step in to protect the rights of a child, as in cases of physical abuse or neglect. But no such concern for individual rights can account for California’s arrogant assertion of state control over the minds of all school-age children residing within its borders.

Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child’s parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.

By confirming that homeschooling is legal in California (at least for the time being), the recent court decision will undoubtedly quiet the shockwaves that were threatening to impact the apologists for government education–teachers’ unions, educational bureaucrats, and politicians. Their political and financial survival depends on a policy that treats children as, in effect, state property–but they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, when the undiluted collectivism of that policy is trumpeted publicly.

The defenders of public schooling can now go back to papering over their system’s own failures??the very failures that helped fuel the homeschooling movement, by driving desperate parents to seek refuge from the irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education, in California and elsewhere.

But what if parents stopped groveling and started asking whether the state has any right at all to be running schools, dictating educational standards for children, and “permitting” parents to homeschool their own kids? This would call into question the moral foundation of public education as such.

As the smoke clears from the current round of litigation, the battle lines remain as they were, clearly drawn. Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? Or are they sovereign individuals whose right to guide their children’s development the state may not infringe?

The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.

Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

California appeals court affirms legality of homeschooling

More Reasons Than Ever to Leave Public Schools
California appeals court affirms legality of homeschooling

Sacramento, California – Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California pro-family organization that supports parental rights and back-to-basics education, is thanking God for today’s court ruling upholding the legality of homeschooling in California.

“With this good decision, parents have more reason than ever to yank their children out of the broken public school system and head for the promised land of homeschooling and church schools,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. “Newly-enacted state laws require homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual indoctrination in public schools. Fortunately, parents can rescue their children and choose the moral and academic excellence offered by home schools and church schools.”

Friday’s ruling from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upholding the legality of homeschooling in California is a reversal of the court’s much-criticized ruling from earlier this year, which said homeschooling was unlawful unless a parent possessed a teaching credential.

Today’s court ruling, however, was unanimously in favor of homeschooling. “California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education,” the three-judge panel wrote. “California impliedly allows parents to home school as a private school, but has provided no enforcement mechanism. As long as the local school district verifies that a private school affidavit has been filed, there is no provision for further oversight of a home school.”

United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep, who represented the father in the case, Phillip L., said he was thrilled with today’s appellate court victory. “We’re extremely gratified that the court has upheld the right of California parents to homeschool their own children. This unanimous ruling is a complete reversal from the court’s Feb. 28 decision to criminalize homeschooling. Parents now have the confidence they can homeschool their children without fear.”

“The California Legislature has just passed a bill (AB 2567) to require public schools to celebrate homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality,” said Thomasson. “Existing state laws require the positive portrayal of alternative lifestyles (SB 777, AB 394) and the abolition of moral values on sexual matters in public schools (SB 71). Since the government schools are imploding, now is the time to discover the rewards of home schools and church schools. On average, homeschooled children succeed academically and develop better character than kids in the government system.”

Campaign for Children and Families has set up a special web site, RescueYourChild.org, to help parents learn how to homeschool or enroll in a church school.

HSLDA: A Great Victory for California Homeschoolers



August 8, 2008


From the HSLDA E-lert Service…

From the HSLDA E-lert Service…

A Great Victory for California Homeschoolers

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

In a unanimous decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today ruled that “California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education.”

Today’s decision stands in stark contrast to the opinion this same three-judge panel issued in February, which would have made California the only state in the union to outlaw home education had it remained in effect.

“It is unusual for an appellate court to grant a petition for rehearing as this court did in March,” said HSLDA Chairman Mike Farris, “but it is truly remarkable for a court to completely reverse its own earlier opinion. We thank you for your prayers and give God the glory for this great victory.”

When the court vacated its earlier decision on March 25, 2008, it invited interested organizations to file friend-of-the-court briefs. “I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling,” said Farris, who was one of the attorneys who argued the case on rehearing along with Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jeff Shafer, who represented the father. The father was also represented by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

California’s three largest homeschool organizations, California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and Christian Home Education Association joined together in one brief to defend the right of all parents to homeschool. HSLDA, Family Protection Ministries and Focus on the Family also joined in a separate brief. Numerous other private organizations came to the defense of home education as did California’s governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

We are extremely grateful to all of the organizations who worked tirelessly to protect and preserve homeschooling freedom in California. We are also thankful for you, our members, for your prayers and support during this trying season.

The freedom to homeschool is a precious gift from God. But keeping it free requires vigilance and perseverance. We must continue to work together diligently to preserve this precious freedom in California and elsewhere.


J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

To read the full opinion click here. Below are excerpts from the opinion:

We will conclude that: (1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent. [FN1: We use the terms “home school” and “home schooling” to refer to full-time education in the home by a parent or guardian who does not necessarily possess a teaching credential.]

Although the Legislature did not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit home schooling, more recent enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition that home schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private schools. Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools. Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of home schooling, by exempting home schools from requirements otherwise applicable to private schools.

While the Legislature has never acted to expressly supersede Turner and Shinn, it has acted as though home schooling is, in fact, permitted in California.

While the legislative history of Education Code section 44237 is somewhat complicated, it confirms this interpretation, and also reflects the Legislature’s apparent intent to accommodate home schooling parents.

The most logical interpretation of subsequent legislative enactments and regulatory provisions supports the conclusion that a home school can, in fact, fall within the private school exception to the general compulsory education law.

We therefore conclude that home schools may constitute private schools.

While the interpretation of the private school exemption is ultimately an issue for the courts, we find it significant that education and enforcement officials at both the state and local levels agree that home schools may constitute private schools.

In short, the rule of Turner and Shinn has been discounted as a doctrinal anachronism, and clinging to such precedent would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.

Favorable Development in the California Homeschooling Case

From the HSLDA website:


Favorable Development in the California Homeschooling Case

Thank you for your continued prayers for the California homeschooling case, In re Rachel L. Home School Legal Defense Association has learned that the juvenile court judge terminated jurisdiction over the two youngest L children in a hearing held on July 10, 2008. Mr. L is represented by Gary Kreep, who is the director of the California-based United States Justice Foundation, which has long been a close ally of HSLDA and homeschoolers in California.

Two years ago, the children’s court-appointed lawyers had asked that the two children be ordered to attend a school outside the home. That request became the basis for the court’s February ruling that homeschooling is illegal in California. The appellate court later vacated its own decision and set the case for rehearing. Oral argument on the rehearing was held on June 23, 2008 and a decision could be handed down at any time.

Mr. L’s appellate attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund will be making the appellate court aware of this new development immediately. They will move to dismiss the petition pending in the court of appeal on the ground that the petition is now moot. In other words, the children are no longer under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Therefore, any decision by the appellate court based on the two-year-old petition could not be enforced against the L children.

“This is a significant favorable development toward preserving homeschooling freedom in California,” said Mike Farris, Chairman and Founder of HSLDA.