[sitetest]

“The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires ‘persons between the ages of six and eighteen’ to be in ‘public full-time day school,’ or a ‘private full-time day school’ or ‘instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught’.”

The HSLDA has advised previously that homeschoolers can generally homeschool by qualifying as a “private full-time day school.” If one looks at the section of California law that govern, it's not tough to qualify.

I imagine that most homeschoolers in California probably qualify through this part of the law, or through association with a qualified private school. One wonders whether the appeals court meant to radically change the interpretation of the law to disqualify homeschoolers who use these legal avenues to homeschool (in which case they appear to have ignored the plain reading of the law), or whether the appeals court was merely stating that in THIS CASE, the legal requirements had not been met.

I read the opinion quickly the other day, and it appeared that the family was claiming some sort of umbrella-like association, and the appeals court specifically rejected their particular claim. I'm unsure that the court actually meant to negate the legality of everyone who is homeschooling through these legal methods.

[poobear]

Thanks for clarifying that sitetest. My first thoughts were how do you qualify as a private educational school in CA. Seems that was the point of the ruling.

You some lawyer or somethin’?