California schools cannot possibly want another 100,000 plus students right now. They aren't able to handle the ones they have. Education is being cut within the state, and the public obviously does not want to pay more for more students. Of course, I do wonder why the highest paid teachers in the nation are manning schools ranking 49th…not blaming teachers, personally, but something isn't working well in California schools!

So, more thoughts: I know that five years ago or so, Delaine Easten was trying to stop homeschooling, saying it was illegal. She was shut down and things have been seemingly quiet… Is this the next step in the campaign to reaquire the education monopoly that has been lost in recent years by the NEA? Is this Delaine Easten type people's Plan B to make homeschooling illegal down the road? Hitler style?

Still: Right now California has almost essentially no requirements for homeschooling. Its so odd in a state that has so much red tape otherwise, and surprised me when I moved here seven years ago. I know HSLDA doesn't want any regulations–perhaps when removing freedoms, it helps to have some kind of legislation to start from in the legal game, I'm sure. Perhaps that is what stymied Delaine Easten last time and thus creating a panic and then Gov S. putting in some regulations that can be eroded later is the goal…

However, I'm not sure there should be zero oversight, as loss of freedom most often occurs when egregious abuse of that freedom occurs. Despite the risks of playing the legal game that the NEA has proven so adept at…

They are asking this parent to attend college classes–some might be in the evening, some might not. How do you teach your child while physically absent from this child?

How do you maintain this certification? Well, you would need to take more courses approved by the state for certification. Maybe these would all be offered in the evening, since they cater to teachers who are working during the day.

HOWEVER–they also require that you spend a certain amount of time WORKING as a paid employee within the education system, from what I read.

How does THIS reconcile with homeschooling? It doesn't.

I agree with you on each of your points, but I do not believe the apparatus of the state is the appropriate mechanism to enforce schooling standards, especially in the home.

If the parent (or in the case of child actors) tutor has a cert in education, then it's legal.

Personally, I think it's BS. The rule should be that if your kid doesn't/can't pass tests for his grade level, then no home school.

[Kip replies: States do not have rights; they have powers -- powers that they can and do abuse. I do not deny this. It is irrelevant in this context.

There is no more right to allow your child to become an illiterate than there is a right to malnourish your child. The fact that reasonable libertarians might disagree on the best definition of "illiterate" does not refute the underlying thesis.]

To adopt a bright-line rule that any homeschooling is "bad" homeschooling is arbitrary, irrational — and likely an unconstitutional violation of due process.

What am I missing here, Kip. I interpret the ruling as say that any homeschooling that does not meet a standard established by the state is bad, not any homeschooling. That standard being determined determined by accrediation and testing.

[Kip replies: What you're missing is the word "non-credentialed," which I used throughout the post.]