Reference: “ those who actually homeschool may do so legally by informing the state that they are a private school, by teaching a similar curriculum as is found in the public schools (that only means teaching similar subjects, not using similar texts, etc.), by declaring that one is “capable of teaching,” by keeping an attendance register, and by filing an affidavit to the effect of these requirements once per year.”
Actually this case was about that kind of arrangement. Also involved was a Christian homeschool association that provided assistance with curricula, testing and such. The judge was saying that this was illegal. He dismissed the association’s involvement and said that its involvement was aiding in the circumvention of the law.
The judge was affirming that only certified, LICENSED teachers may teach their children.
“Actually this case was about that kind of arrangement. Also involved was a Christian homeschool association that provided assistance with curricula, testing and such.”
I only briefly read the opinion, but my sense was that the family may have been trying to qualify under two different options. Also, I don't know whether or not they submitted the necessary affidavit for the first option, qualifying as a private school.
“The judge was saying that this was illegal.”
If not done properly, in California, it is illegal.
“He dismissed the association’s involvement and said that its involvement was aiding in the circumvention of the law.”
I don't know if the school with which they were trying to associate was properly qualified or certified, or if they were following it properly.
That the justices cited the tutoring option as going unfulfilled for lack of a certified teacher at least suggests that it's possible that they didn't have evidence of the first option (qualifying as a private school) or the third option (qualifying through another private school) .
It appears that this family has trouble with the child welfare folks (I don't know whether that's justified or not). It may be that this family didn't fill out the right forms properly, and the justices decided to get ‘em on a technicality. I don't know.
Even the HSLDA is still a little cautious about this one:
“Home School Legal Defense Association was not involved with this case, and the family are not members, which is why we only heard about this case when the opinion was released on February 28, 2008.
“Since legal cases have many facets, and we are starting from scratch, it takes time to investigate and fully absorb all the facts which led up to a particular decision. We are in the middle of that process, but because of the interest in this case we want to give you as much information as we can regarding the implications for California.”
That was posted on Tuesday, March 6. Thus, after about a week of working on the case, they're still figuring it out.
I'm gonna wait until the HSLDA has more to say about it.
sitetest