Comments on: California judges say parents do not have a right to home-school their children. http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/california-judges-say-parents-do-not-have-a-right-to-home-school-their-children/ Christ beside me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ within me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me. Patrick the Church Planter of Éire, Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:33:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: tonyohh http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/california-judges-say-parents-do-not-have-a-right-to-home-school-their-children/#comment-143 tonyohh Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:19:24 +0000 http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/?p=304#comment-143 Thanks for your input Larry Tone Thanks for your input Larry
Tone

]]> By: Larry http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/california-judges-say-parents-do-not-have-a-right-to-home-school-their-children/#comment-142 Larry Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:06:30 +0000 http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/?p=304#comment-142 Home schooling is illegal in California. Most home schoolers are Christians and all they know to do is fearmonger. Just look at this as an example! <a href="http://www.cftie.org/2007/12/sb-777-will-per.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cftie.org/2007/12/sb-777-will-per.html</a> Home schooling is illegal in California. Most home schoolers are Christians and all they know to do is fearmonger. Just look at this as an example!

http://www.cftie.org/2007/12/sb-777-will-per.html

]]> By: jhcckkm http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/california-judges-say-parents-do-not-have-a-right-to-home-school-their-children/#comment-141 jhcckkm Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:08:05 +0000 http://tonyohh.wordpress.com/?p=304#comment-141 If I understand the ruling, correctly, it states: "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," said the appellate court, "(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." The key word above is: unless. And the key phrase is one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance. Here is "One of the other few statutory exemptions": Qualify as a Private School by filing an annual affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction between October 1 and 15. Court Documents: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF California Education Law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=33190%2C+48220&hits=20 If I understand the ruling, correctly, it states: “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,” said the appellate court, “(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.”
The key word above is: unless. And the key phrase is one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance.
Here is “One of the other few statutory exemptions”:
Qualify as a Private School by filing an annual affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction between October 1 and 15.

Court Documents: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

California Education Law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=33190%2C+48220&hits=20

]]>