I’m looking around the ‘net for California news about the Rachel L case that surprisingly gained enough momentum via a California appellate decision to potentially change California homeschooling status.  Here’s some of what I found so far, starting out with a San Francisco Post Chronicle article from yesterday:
Appeals Court Hears Home Schooling Case

The state’s laws demand children between 6 and 18 years of age must attend a full-time public or private school or be taught by someone with a credential for the student’s grade level. But, the newspaper said, the law has rarely been enforced for home-schooling parents and the earlier court ruling sent shock waves across the conservative movement.
Most legal observers said the issue will ultimately be decided by the California Supreme Court.

The appellate court has 90 days to make a decision about this re-hearing.  I think the homeschool community had middlin’ level tremors occurring; not just the conservative movement.  One submitted brief supporting homeschooling was by California Attny. General Jerry [Moonbeam] Brown, who I don’t think has ever been marked as a conservative.

From the Legal Newsline:

Court hears Calif. homeschool case; Brown urges judges to overturn ruling

"The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children," the brief submitted by Brown and Schwarzenegger said.

California’s three statewide homeschool organizations - the California Homeschool Network, Christian Home Educators Association of California and Homeschool Association of California- have also filed a brief in the case.

More from the Post Chronicle:

Court to revisit ruling on homeschooling

Advocates, who include Christian conservatives and assorted critics of the public school system, see homeschooling as a refuge from institutions that are overly secular, violent or simply ineffectual.

Still in provocative form above.  Lots of homeschoolers don’t make the decision to homeschool in opposition of the pubic school.  It benefits their family cohesiveness while seeing to their children’s education.  From the same article:

The most notable dissenter was the 330,000-member California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union. While insisting that it does not challenge the right of parents to homeschool their children, the association argued that state law requires in-home teachers to be credentialed.

"Parents do not have an unfettered right to dictate the terms of their children’s education," the union’s attorney, Priscilla Winslow, said in her brief. "A private school is not the same as homeschooling."

Give me an education anarchist any day.  While the CEA is standing in the ‘oversight for all’ line, the other teacher unions are standing on the sidelines watching the show:

Two other teachers unions invited by the court to file arguments, the California Federation of Teachers and United Teachers Los Angeles, stayed on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines

The 120,000-member California Federation of Teachers supports public schools and standards for instructors, but "it’s not realistic to think that we’re going to get certain groups of parents who choose to homeschool their kids to get a credential," said spokesman Fred Glass. "Why create a firestorm, a backlash, that draws time and resources away from the central project of educating children?"

The Los Angeles Tmes has an article today about yesterday’s hearing:
In defense of home schooling By Gale Holland June 24, 2008

Monday’s rehearing in the case drew at least 45 lawyers representing the California attorney general, the governor, the state Department of Education and several religious-liberty legal foundations, as well as home-school father Mark Landstrom of Northridge.

I hope this fella Drake didn’t have a voice inside the courtroom, for criminy sakes:

"The Bible, our legal document, says the family is required to educate children based on the Scriptures," Drake said. "We’re against government schooling in any form. People who put their kids in public school probably should be arrested."

Should be arrested….what a stupid thing to say yesterday in or out of the courtroom.  Continuing with today’s article:

In Monday’s hearing, Patricia Bell of the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles argued that the courts have "extremely broad powers" to overrule parents when children’s safety is at risk.

"This is not an outlandish or unreasonable request," agreed Judith A. Luby, representing DCFS.

The Children’s Law Center ["voice" for abused and neglected youth in one of the largest foster care systems in the nation] is one more of those orgs that says they are "Standing Up for Children".  Inference seems to be that if they don’t, no one will.  Voices for IL Children irritates me with the same sort of mantra. 

Again, from the LA Times article today, there was a teensy bit of input from the Justices in the article:

Several of the justices suggested that the Legislature had foisted the decision on the courts by failing to intervene.

After the hearing, several observers said it was hard to tell which way the court was leaning. The justices repeatedly pressed lawyers on both sides to specify exactly what they should do.

"All of you recognize the issues before us are monumental," said Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein in wrapping up the proceedings. "We’re as frustrated as you are."

Why would legislation be required for unnecessary interventions in the choice to homeschool? Intervention:Homeschool…bad combination.  Seems to be a constitutionally backwards way of looking at the issue, but maybe it was the wording by Gale Holland. 
We shall see.