Replies

I'm familiar enough with the home schooling situation in California to know that this explanation is correct. Yes, you do have to jump through some red-tape hoops in order to declare your home a "private school", but those hoops are fairly easy ones. Ideally there should not be any impediments, but in practice anyone who follows a series of minimal steps will be able to home-school their children.

Anyone who wants assistance (including legal assistance) should go to the Home School Association of California website. They have detailed instructions for how to proceed.

Quite frankly, any parents who lack the ability to search out and follow the necessary steps to be legal home-schoolers probably also lack the ability to adequately teach their children. The bar in California is that low.

So although this appears to be an unfortunate court ruling, it's not too surprising, and it will have little practical effect on most home-schoolers.

As a third party observer to this situation, it is noteworthy that while I'm all for homeschooling, I am still interpreting § 48224 probably as strictly as the California judges have. In other words, given what the California majority wants as opposed to what their legal system is giving them, homeschooling laws seem to be poorly written.

§ 48224. Children not attending a private, full-time, day school and who are being instructed in study and recitation for at least three hours a day for 175 days each calendar year by a private tutor or other person in the several branches of study required to be taught in the public schools of this state and in the English language shall be exempted. The tutor or other person shall hold a valid state credential for the grade taught. (emphasis mine) The instruction shall be offered between the hours of 8 o'clock a.m. and 4 o'clock p.m.

Could it be that the claims of some of the forum members that California's requirements for becoming a legal homeschooling tutor are minimal are actually wrong and that the judge's call on stricter requirements for being a homeschool tutor was indeed a lose canon that has fired as a consequence of poorly worded code?

Also, it seems like trying to find the requirements for a valid teaching credential in California has been like trying to catch a greased pig. Here is what I've found so far.

"Individuals who hold a valid California teaching credential, which required (emphasis mine) a bachelor's degree and professional preparation program including student teaching, are exempt from the RICA requirement." California Commission on Teacher Credentialing

(Why is the above statement written in past tense? Perhaps a historical statement? If it's another example of poor wording then please don't tell me.)

Finally, why are people seemingly trying to use the stereotype of crazy California judges to make an issue out of this thing when the voting majority basically has the power to have the kind of laws that they want? In other words, wherever the legal majority goes, there they are!