<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Homeschool vs. Education Under Teachers &#8220;With Credentials&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kingdomeducation.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/homeschool-vs-education-under-teachers-with-credentials/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kingdomeducation.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/homeschool-vs-education-under-teachers-with-credentials/</link>
	<description>a place for Christian school teachers, parents and students</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:56:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jhcckkm</title>
		<link>http://kingdomeducation.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/homeschool-vs-education-under-teachers-with-credentials/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>jhcckkm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingdomeducation.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-94</guid>
		<description>If I understand the ruling, correctly, it states: &quot;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,&quot; said the appellate court, &quot;(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.&quot;
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 &quot;One of the other few statutory exemptions&quot;: 
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&amp;codebody=33190%2C+48220&amp;hits=20</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I understand the ruling, correctly, it states: &#8220;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,&#8221; said the appellate court, &#8220;(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.&#8221;<br />
The key word above is: unless. And the key phrase is one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance.<br />
Here is &#8220;One of the other few statutory exemptions&#8221;:<br />
Qualify as a Private School by filing an annual affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction between October 1 and 15. </p>
<p>Court Documents: <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF</a></p>
<p>California Education Law: <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&amp;codebody=33190%2C+48220&amp;hits=20" rel="nofollow">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&amp;codebody=33190%2C+48220&amp;hits=20</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
