[Fundamentally Fair]

This may or may not be a serious issue, but you cannot trust LifeSite News or World Net Daily to get it right. Example from the article:

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".

Why do you suppose that the had to use four sets of quotes? Could it be because they are not accurately quoting the opinion?

Here’s what it really says

It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child.

See the ruling at the link.

And, before you flame me, my argument is not about home schooling. It is about accurate reporting.

[r9etb]

Thanks for posting the link to the actual ruling. Amazingly -- but not at all surprisingly -- none of the "Outraged Articles" bothers to provide it.

Alas, too many FReepers don't seem interested in going to the actual sources anymore -- they'd rather believe implicitly, and quote liberally from, articles that quote WorldNutDoily.

[SoftballMominVA]

My experience is that WND, like every other news source, is not interesting is accurate reporting, but in increasing revenue through evidence of readership. More hits = more exposure = higher costs for advertisements = more $$ for owners. Accuracy is the proverbial blind pig finding his daily acorn. Accuracy happens, it just isn’t always planned.