On the California homeschooling case

All hype aside, it appears that the court is stating blankly that according to California law, minor children must be enrolled in school, and homeschooling is not an option. To quote the opinion:

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. Because the parents in this case have not demonstrated that any of these exemptions apply to their children…”

First of all, it appears that the parents in the case in question were not fulfilling their responsibilities in good faith, or at least this was alleged by the state.

They quote the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468], held that: ‘No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.’ [¶]

The California court then concludes:

Included in the laws governing the educational program were those regulating the attendance of children at school and the power of the state to enforce compulsory education of children within the state at some school is beyond question.

The court’s decision rests primarily on another California appeal court case, People v. Turner. This case, which was dismissed on appeal to the US Supreme Court for “want of a substantial federal question” according to the L case judges. The Turner case enforced California code which allows for homeschooling only within the loopholes provided in California legal code. According to the L judges:

The court stated California’s legislative scheme makes no such exemption to attendance in a public school. (Turner, supra, 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 868-869; accord Shinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d, at p. 694, where the court stated that “[h]ome education, regardless of its worth, is not the legal equivalent of attendance in school in the absence of instruction by qualified private tutors.”)

This statement shows that for the State of California, the quality of the education provided by homeschooling vs. other options is not even the issue; the state simply has final say in the education question and can do what it pleases.