What I read in that opinion directly contradicts the notion that home-schooling parents only have to file some forms and meet some low hurdles. The case seems to state explicitly that full teaching credentials are required of home-schooling parents, even while private schools can require far lower credentials.
I was reading it similarly. I just looked up a homeschool website that starts with the following:
State law requires all children between the ages of 6 and 18 to be enrolled in a public school, unless they are attending a "full-time, private day school" or being instructed by a private tutor who holds a valid California teaching certificate. (California Education Code §48222) This allows homeschooling parents four options: 1. Establish a home-based private school 2. Enroll in a private school that offers independent study 3. Enroll in a public school that offers independent study 4. Utilize a credentialed tutor - or the parent, if so qualified
Given the judges ruling, it doesn't sound like Option 2 is really an option at all.
In 2002, then-state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin said homeschooling was illegal and that she would enforce the law. Eastin then asked the Legislature to take up the issue. It declined.Six months later, O'Connell took over as state schools chief and opted for a hands-off approach, directing homeschooling families to the forms required to create a private school and telling local districts that truancy was their issue.
...Many homeschooling parents register as a private school with the state - a status that does not require credentialed teachers - and then enroll their children in their school. Across the state, there are 18,352 students attending private schools with five or fewer students, state education officials said.