Inspired by a little-known picture book from the pen of Bethany Tudor, this is a diary, of sorts, where I document some of my thoughts, activities, and ideas as I explore the challenges met by the characters in the story: hard work, the care and nurture of others, housekeeping skills, life changes, charity, community, and cooperation, among others. Like Samuel and Samantha, the ducks in the tale, I struggle and succeed, cope and celebrate, work and play, handling the tasks that come my way. I invite you to join me on my journey.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Re-Hearing Granted!

Praise the Lord for small miracles! The California Court of Appeal has granted a motion of rehearing in the case of In re Rachel L. Here is the article from the HSLDA website.
On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case --- the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools.

The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case.

The Court of Appeal has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three other California teacher unions. The court also grated permission to Sunland Christ School to file an amicus brief. The order also indicates that it will consider amicus applications for other groups.

Home School Legal Defense Association will seek to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a number of organizations interesting [sic] in filing briefs to support the right of parents to homeschool their children in California.

“This is a great first step,” said Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. “We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be. This case remains our top priority,” he added.
The most important part: the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on anyone!

No comments: