The Berkeley Unified School District SARB is demanding the families produce evidence of their children's school attendance as well as information regarding their educational curriculum.

Board members first made the demand at a hearing on May 19 and gave the parents until May 31 to comply. Initially, a verbal request was made for proof of attendance only, but a letter from the SARB that was received by the families on May 23 amended the notification also to require the families' curriculum information.

Attorney Will Rogers, who represents three of the four families, said he requested an extension of the deadline after he received the board's letter, but was not given a response. He made a second request on May 30, which was denied.

The Home School Legal Defense Association told WorldNetDaily the SARB has no authority to request any information regarding curriculum.

However, according to Mary Schofield of Family Protection Ministries, a California-based advocacy group, the board may require proof of school attendance but only after a complaint has been filed against specific students.

Though the origins of such complaints are kept confidential by the SARB, sources told WND it is an "open secret" that a disgruntled ex-husband of one of the mothers in question filed the complaint. The divorced couple is currently in the middle of a custody battle.

All four families attend the same church, as did the suspected complainant until his divorce. Prior to his divorce, the man -- a school district employee -- was known as a strong advocate for home schooling and had been preparing to open a home school on his church's property.

However, he has since registered a complaint with the California Franchise Tax Board challenging his former church's tax-exempt status and reportedly initiated the investigation into his friends' home schooling practices.

The action has become a critical case for home schools in California. Alameda County is notoriously hostile toward home schoolers and may use the complaint to challenge the legality of home schools in the state.

Jan Passama, spokeswoman for the Alameda County Office of Education, told WND, "We all have different feelings as to whether home schooling is legal or not."

Some of those "feelings" revolve around whether the filing of a private school affidavit constitutes the creation of a private school. Many home schooling families file the affidavit, known as an R-4, to inform the state their children are indeed receiving an education.

Passama provided a document she indicated explains the district's position regarding the validity of home schools' R-4s. Titled, "Home Schooling: Can we put this issue to bed?" by Milton D. Dooley, the document outlines arguments against the legality of home schools.

Dooley cites a 1961 case in which a California "court held that a course of study from a correspondence school cannot be classified as a private full-time day school within the meaning of [California Education Code Section] 48222, where neither parent held a teaching credential for the grades taught, and where no teachers from the correspondence school were present at the home to teach the children."

A former consultant with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Dooley also argues against a "recent ploy to 'legitimize' home schooling." Many parents register their children with "administrative units," which charge a fee for enrollment and sell a curriculum, but, according to Dooley, "provide no supervision over academic progress or teaching."

Such an arrangement does not constitute a "private school" and is not legitimized by the filing of an R-4, he says.

Interestingly, Dooley notes the number of students enrolled in such "administrative units" in Los Angeles County in the early 1990s totaled 1,344.

"In addition to questionable education, these students represent a loss of $5,376,000, in state reimbursement, which would be gained if they were enrolled in school district Independent Study programs," he wrote.

Dooley does not explain how those funds can be counted as a "loss" when they merely would have been "reimbursements" to the district for providing educational services. Since no services are being provided, as the students are home schooled, no reimbursements are necessary.

Rogers says his clients have the right to determine how their children are educated.

"Our clients have a fundamental freedom to direct the education of their children and to explore and to try out different alternatives in the world of education," he told WND. "The Berkeley School District is saying, 'No, you don't have that freedom. We are going to limit your choices.'

"My clients are saying, 'No, this is America. We have freedom to determine what is in the best interests for our children with regards to their education. And we, the families, have determined that home schooling is best for our children. They are thriving in the home school environment. We don't want that taken away.'"

"[The board members] have the view that only they can provide an adequate education for these children," Rogers added.

Compulsory education laws require parents to enroll their children in school. The last 20 years has seen an increasingly heated debate as to what constitutes a "school" as more parents who are disenchanted with failing public schools decide to educate their children at home.

The Berkeley SARB case could be a turning point for the status of home schools in California. The families in question are meeting Monday to decide whether legal action should be taken in the matter.

Related stories:

Clinton wants to 'organize' home schoolers