Education Law: Homeschooling The objective of this work in writing is to conduct an analysis of RV Jones case based on the questions of: (1) What is the legal path of this case and what are the key facts of the case? (2) What are the decision of the highest court and the key points of law defined by the judge in the rationale of this decision? If the decision had a majority and minority judgment outline the points in each. (3) What are the implications to your teacher profession and your classroom practice?

Legal Path and Key Facts of Case

Jones (1986) involved the pastor of a fundamentalist church, appellant in the case, who had provided home schooling for his children that operated in the basement of the church. The pastor refused to send his children to the public school as 142(1) of the Alberta School Act required and as well refused to seek an exemption under s 143(1)(a) and (e) excusing a pupil from attending a school over which a board has control if:

(1) a Department of Education inspector or a Superintendent of Schools certifies that he is receiving efficient instruction at home or elsewhere, or (2) He is attending a private school approved by the Department of Education. (1986)

The result is that the pastor was charged with three counts of truancy under s180(1) of the School Act. The appellant invoked ss. 2(a) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and held that the requirement in s. 142(1) of the Act, or even the requirement that he apply for an exemption pursuant to x. 143(1) "contravened his religious beliefs that God, rather than the

2(a) of the Charter was not applicable however the judge upheld the defense based on s. 7 stating that "since proof of efficient instruction was solely by means of a certificate issued by the school authorities, this would prevent the appellant from making a full answer and defense by bringing all evidence relevant to the issue before the court. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and entered convictions against the appellant on all three counts.
Justice Wilson dissented holding that the appeal should be dismissed. Specifically stated is that the School Act effectuates interference with the freedom of religion of the appellant, however it is reported that the provisions of the Act "do not offend s. 2(a) of the Charter. The Act, which was enacted to regulate the education of young people in the Alberta schools, does not give the government absolute control over the education of children. A child is not forced, under the Act, to attend a school over which a board has control. Section 143(1) provides alternatives and allows for instruction at home or elsewhere, so long as that instruction is certified to be efficient. Appellant also had the right, under this section, to seek the registration of his academy as a private school. Considering the compelling interest of the province in the "efficient instruction" of the young, a requirement that a person who gives instruction at home or elsewhere have that instruction certified as being sufficient is demonstrably justified in a free and…