The Constitutionality of Teacher Certification Requirements for Home-Schooling Parents: Why the Original Rachel L. Decision was Valid
Haley J. Conard, 2 Drexel L. Rev. 206 (2009)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
This Note argues that, had the Court of Appeal retained its original interpretation, a requirement that parents must be certified by the state to teach their children at home would, in most circumstances, withstand a constitutional challenge. The Note first presents the two decisions of the California Court of Appeal and the reasoning behind each. The Note then examines the origins and development of parental rights over education stemming from Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, arguing that these precedents grant parents less than an absolute, fundamental right to direct all aspects of their children’s education, both in traditional and home-school contexts. Further, the Note argues that challenges to certification requirements for home-schooling parents would withstand rational basis review, as the requirements are rationally related to legitimate state interests in education. The Note then examines protection of religion-based home schooling under Wisconsin v. Yoder and Yoder’s later characterization as a “hybrid situation” involving both parental and religious rights in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith. The Note finally argues that, although generally the Yoder-type hybrid claim has had limited success in the educational context, a challenge to a home-school certification requirement may prevail if parents can show evidence of the factors key to the Yoder decision.
