Here is Ace of Spades HQ on the decision:
In the Longs' case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a "valid charter school" and that the school was supervising the mothers' instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court's opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn't meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren't, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to "enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school." It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.But this analysis ignores the fact that the decision does not limit its consideration to whether the student was or was not enrolled in a charter school. As I pointed out here, it asks instead whether the student qualified under any of the exemptions under California law.
So maybe, in fact, the decision was is really as bad as it seems.