A California court has ruled that a homeschooling family must send their children to school, saying, "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence.' "

Follow this link to the original source: "Judge orders homeschoolers into government education"

It’s hard to think of anything more near and dear to our hearts, anything of which we’re more protective, than our children. It’s also hard to imagine a more important right than that to raise one’s children in accordance with the dictates of a well-formed conscience. Now, though, the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles has abrogated that right, ruling that a homeschooling couple, Phillip and Mary Long, must enroll their two youngest children in a government school or "legally qualified" private one.

Columnist Bob Unruh points out that such actions have a chilling parallel:

"The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation’s youth."

(Article continues below)

The Hitler reference is apropos, as such intrusion into the family is the greatest of tyrannies. While the court cloaked its ruling in cerebral-sounding euphemisms, such as the "general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence," it’s nauseatingly sanctimonious. Either intelligence hasn’t diffused into the California court system (by the way, how does intelligence — considered an innate quality — "diffuse"?), or the leftists in question care not a whit about education. Otherwise, they would surely support homeschooling.

I actually call it "natural schooling," since children have been educated within the home for most of man’s existence; thus, when viewed within the broad context of history, it’s obviously the norm, not the exception. Whatever the name, one thing is for certain: Children thus educated often surpass their "schooled" peers by any academic measure. As I wrote in a piece entitled "Natural Schooling":

Of course, a critic would point out that it may not be a fair comparison, since a person who practices natural schooling is not an average parent but an unusually engaged one. Thus, there is little question that such students would excel in most any setting. Yet this misses the point.

First, there’s no question in my mind they wouldn’t perform as well, although this thesis’ validity will elude those bereft of common sense. Whatever your conclusion, however, there is one overriding, inescapable fact: Naturally-schooled kids perform better. So, if it isn’t broken, why fix it? Their parents are obviously doing something right.

In contrast, many say the government school system is terribly broken; yet I disagree with this set as well. As columnist Vox Day said recently, "One cannot fix what is not broken, and the schools are working as they are designed to work."

Schools have long been ideological training grounds, rife with the fashionable "isms" of the day. Phrases such as "diffusion of knowledge" are nothing but Orwellian code words for indoctrination consisting of multiculturalism, radical environmentalism, feminism, and other secular ideologies. In California the problem is especially acute, as the state is now pursuing an aggressive, pro-homosexual curriculum that could lead to the terms "mom" and "dad" being purged from its schools. Making note of this, Mr. Long said that the schools teach values that are contrary to his deeply held religious beliefs and that, "When they [his children] are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such."

Whatever one’s beliefs, there’s no question that schools long ago departed from their original purpose. Compulsory schooling was initially established to facilitate literacy, yet true education has been subordinated to social activism. Yet, laughably, the court cited a California law stating that a child not in school must be ". . . instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught." Would that be a credential you might obtain at an academy such as the College of Education at CSU, Sacramento? I ask because the school’s dean recently disseminated the following message:

I wonder, to earn a "teaching credential" from such an esteemed institution, must one learn to count to five? More significantly, where in those five goals are elements of anything remotely similar to a traditional education?

Thus, government schools do work — in the way communist re-education camps or the Hitler Youth worked — a fact evidenced by the realization of academia’s goals. While Johnny can’t read, he sure knows the buzzwords, talking points and mantras of the government ashrams.

That is the issue. The social engineers want a monopoly over the heart and mind of man; hence hate-speech laws, speech codes on college campuses and in workplaces — and campaigns against natural schooling. As Vladimir Lenin said, "Give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world."

This is why the left has pursued the separation-of-church-and-state formula: Take God out of school, replace Him with the belief system of secularism, and force kids into school. In essence, it’s the establishment of irreligion, as children are compelled to attend schools-cum-churches and "worship" an amalgamation of isms. And, should they exhibit sacrilege, they are anathema.

What we really need is a separation of school and state.