Resolution Introduced to Reverse Court Ruling

March 10, 2008 @ 12:17 pm | Filed under:

UPDATE from the CA Homeschooling Network:

California Assemblyman Joel Anderson is introducing a concurrent resolution in the Assembly. He is calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the recent court decision that could make homeschooling illegal.

This will happen fast, since it’s a resolution and not a bill. All California homeschoolers are encouraged to contact their legislators and ask them to support homeschoolers by voting yes on Joel Anderson’s ACR supporting homeschooling. We expect there will be a powerful response as California homeschoolers respond.

As information develops, it will be placed on CHN’s legal updates page.

I am very curious about this: “reversal of ruling” sounds like a different outcome than “depublishing the ruling.” Is this definitely what we want? I’ll post more info as I find it.

UPDATE: HomeSchool Association of California encourages people to support this resolution. (But I am still not sure why the assemblyman is calling for a reversal rather than depublishing. I’d like some more answers on this.) HSC Legislative Chair Debbie Schwartzer writes:

This is one case where I do encourage members of HSC and all other homeschoolers in the state to contact their representatives (currently, just the Assemblymembers, as it is not pending before the Senate and will just confuse your Senator’s office if you call now) and encourage them to vote in favor of ACR 115. You can find your Assemblymember and his or her contact information by going to, clicking on the blue box entitled “Your Legislature”, and entering your zip code.

Calls are fine, but letters faxed to the office are even better, as they then retain tangible evidence of their constituents’ positions.

The resolution reads as follows:

Assembly Concurrent Resolution

WHEREAS, Some thirty years of experience with the modern homeschooling movement in California demonstrates that home school graduates take up responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of Colleges and Universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large; and

WHEREAS, Homeschooling by California families with diverse backgrounds has historically given children a quality education through proven, independent approaches that nurture valuable family bonds and support successful student development; and

WHEREAS, private homeschooling has a long and rich history in the State of California, currently estimated as involving 200,000 students in the State of California, and 2,000,000 students nationwide; and

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska); and

WHEREAS, On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal; and

WHEREAS, This misguided interpretation denies California parents’
primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and
manner of their own children’s education; and

WHEREAS, The fair opportunity of California families to educate their
children should not be undermined; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, that the Legislature hereby calls upon the California Supreme Court to reverse the opinion.

RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

    Related Posts


2 Reponses | Comments Feed
  1. Jennifer says:

    Iiiiinteresting. I enjoy hearing your thoughts on this.

  2. Amy C. says:

    Just an fyi, hope it helps: Reversal means a higher court reviews the case and says that the lower court’s decision is wrong (in whole or in part). The higher court’s opinion is the controlling word on the issue at hand, and any time the issue comes up in the future, lawyers are required to cite the opinion as precedent. It’s a definitive statement about the lower court’s ruling. Depublishing means that the opinion is still public record, but is not controlling in future cases; that is, lawyers don’t have to cite it when the issue comes up again. But they can cite it. Before everything was online, this was a much stronger distinction: unpublished cases were only found down at the courthouse, not in the books on the shelves of the law library, so you’d have to do a lot of work to cite an unpublished case. Today it’s easy to track down unpublished cases, so they’re easier to cite. So while depublishing is still a useful distinction (a brief citing an unpublished case would note that it’s not a controlling case, though still hoping that the opinion will be persuasive), it’s a lesser distinction.