I agree with you that there is a substantive difference by the appeals court decision favorably quotes that languagge from Turner which said that there is not one. The courts conclusion is not fleshed out since it simply ruled that there is no constitutional right to homeschool and then remanded the case for legal and factual findings. However, the court did did make another statement near the end of the case which seemed to incorporate Turner’s finding by reference. Here is that quote which you can find on the top of page 11.
“The Legislature has not amended the substantive aspects of the compulsory education statutes that were analyzed in Turner and Shinn. Like those courts, we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,” which Article IX, section 1 of our Constitution states is “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.””
Correction - ...but the appeals court decision favorably quotes...
Saw that quote...that’s why I used “substantive difference” and feel that it’s important to not give that idea traction.
I also think this is a rotten case to go to the Supreme Court...and believe that the legislative route is necessary.