“one of his stated reasons is that CA law requires that teachers to be ‘qualified;’...”
Actually, I believe the law says “capable of teaching.”
In my own mind, that's an extremely low standard to make. Other than folks who are just about comatose, just about anyone is capable of teaching to some degree or other.
I think that the justices in this case looked past the plain meaning of the state's laws, as well as their usual interpretation, and distorted the laws that are on the books because they're trying to go after a child welfare case through the state's schooling laws.
It makes me wonder just how real is the state's child abuse case against the parents.
sitetest
A fair correction -- I was paraphrasing from (poor) memory.
In my own mind, that's an extremely low standard to make. Other than folks who are just about comatose, just about anyone is capable of teaching to some degree or other. I think that the justices in this case looked past the plain meaning of the state's laws....
Actually, the judges in this case did not rely on their own opinions on that matter; but rather on the Turner case, which was presented as controlling precedent. (See the detailed discussion beginning on Page 7 of the ruling).
Note, BTW, that this ruling does not preclude home-schooling at all -- the parents could become qualified as "tutors" under California law.
As noted above, the real problem here is that folks in California have been trying to find ways around the clear language of the law, in order to do their home-schooling. And thus, when confronted by a ruling based on the letter of the law, they're left with no options.
The real solution is simple to state, if perhaps hard to achieve: change the law.