So has the california homeschool issue not been settled? I thought the governator had said he would veto it if it reached him.
The California homeschool issue has NOT been settled. Governor Schwarzenegger has said that he will work with the legislature to make sure parents do have such a choice as homeschooling. Because this is all based on a legal case, he has no veto power. The trial court ruled in favor of the State and upheld the law on the books. The appeals court affirmed that ruling. Now, the appeals court has now said it will reconsider the ruling.
The problem is that the court can't ignore the law that currently exists. The court ruled that all children between the age of six and 18 must be enrolled in a recognized California public school or be subject to one of the States limited exemptions to compulsory education. (as per the CA Education Code that is currently the law in CA)
Even on the HSLDA website they have never outright said that a parent can educate their children at home without certain criteria being met to comply with the CA Education Code.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?State=CA
Keep in mind though, the case of Rachel L. originated in the trial court after the oldest of the family's children reported to government officials that the children were being physically and emotionally mistreated by their father. It was not brought as a 'homeschool' case. The fact that the children were being homeschooled came in to play later.
At some point, the attorney for two of the three minor children in the case petitioned the Appellate Court for extraordinary writ relief, asking the Court to direct the trial court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or private school, and actually attend such a school. Apparently, the attorney for the two children was dissatisfied with the trial court's earlier decision declining to order the children to attend public school. While the trial court found that homeschooling the children received was "meager",
the trial court held that it could not order the children to public school because it believed that "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."
(emphasis mine)
The Appellate Court said the trial court was mistaken, and that California courts already have determined that that "under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children."
The Appellate Court was not stating that the parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children under the United States Constitution. The Appellate Court was referring to the California Constitution only.
See, the California Appeals Court cited the United States Supreme Court's decision in another case (Pierce) and it recognized that parents have a fundamental right to the upbringing and education of their children under the U.S. Constitution,
but the Appeals Court, more importantly for its purposes, cited that section of Pierce and another Supreme Court case that more particularly describes the right of the State to "regulate" the education of children.
Ultimately, the Appeals Court held that it had no actual facts before it to determine whether these parents in the case of Rachel L. actually complied with the California statutes or not. So, the Court sent the case back to the trial court for another hearing so that the parents could present evidence to prove that they are in compliance with California statutes. The Court also held that the trial court should order the parents to comply with the statutes and unless they had a legal ground for not doing so, the trial court must order the parents "(1) enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school and (2) see to it that the children receive their education in such school." At the new hearing before the trial court, then, the parents could provide evidence that they are in compliance with the statutes, thus giving the trial court a legal ground for not ordering the children to enroll in a public or private school.
The public needs to understand that this decision is only binding on the parties in this particular case. Even so, the parents in this case may not necessarily have to send their children to public school. They may be able to prove they are in compliance with the law such that the trial court will have no grounds to order the children back to public or private school. If the parents cannot prove they are in compliance, and if the trial court does order the children back to public or private school, the parents still could appeal that decision to California's Supreme Court.
Does this case act as a precedent? Yes, but it is only a precedent for a trial court that may hear a similar case in the future. Even at that, the trial court could find one or more facts to be different in that future case such that it may decide that this Appeals Court case is not of any precedential value. Courts do that all the time. Or, the Appeals Court in another case may declare its decision in In re Rachel L. to be reversed at some point in the future. Courts do this less often, but they do it nonetheless.
Or, more importantly the public has other recourse with elected officials. The parents in California, or any state, at any time, regarding any Court decision, may ask the legislature to clarify the state law and to overturn any Court decision.
The point is, contrary to popular belief and fear mongering headlines, as you can see from a careful reading of the Appeals Court's actual decision,
the Court did not rule that "homeschooling in California is illegal". It would appear that nothing really has changed as a result of this decision. The Appeals Court did not overturn California's existing statutes. The Court upheld them. If parents comply with the statutes, they are just as free to homeschool as they were before this decision.
So, where are we now? The Appeals Court has decided to grant the petition for rehearing. That means the prior decision of the Appeals Court is vacated until it rules after the oral arguments in June 2008.
Don't panic! The law hasn't changed and so long as Californian's who homeschool comply with the law then there is not a problem. It's just like the rest of the country -- comply with the law (no matter how many hoops you have to jump thru) or risk not being permitted to homeschool.
Sorry for such a long post but I wanted to make it as clear as possible what this all means to the homeschool community.
Keep Homeschooling!
Yes, have 5 really great MKs! Our oldest is going to go Tien Shan in Almaty next year (for many reasons) . Your friends must be in Kyrgyzstan, since Faith is in Bishkek. Anyway, it'll be fun to watch the discussions going on, and offer what I can when I have time. I'm mostly a lurker here, but am a regular on the camping forum. 
I'm sorry for the sarcasm, I just feel so bad for all those parents having to deal with this. 
I HATE one of the co-ops we are in. Hate it. But I am friends with the women who are in it and am going to our state conference with them in a few weeks. I teach the 4-6 year old class with a curriculum that i do not like at all. (If anyone of you remember, last summer I wrote about a geography curriculum that two other moms and I were writing. Well, it was going in a direction I really didn't like or agree with and so I bowed out.) This co-op is supposed to be totally planned by the whole group and decisions of changes are supposed to be made by the whole group but these two women have pretty much taken over. They have their little side conversations and decide where the group as a whole is going. Plus there is a bunch of extra stuff to do--for instance at the end of the year, we do a HUGE festival type things for families and friends to come and see. Basically it is like an open house, but MUCH bigger. Honestly I haev nothing to prove and my in laws would come to an event for my kids if it was about them playing in the mud. They don't care what it is, they just adore their grandchildren. Then there is a big summer event our group "runs" which basically means that the one woman tells us all what to do. Both of these events take a lot of time and energy neither of which I have.
