Functioning on Faith

Last night, I led our first homeschool support group meeting of the 2006-2007 academic year. The topic was Understanding the CT Law, as it pertains to homeschooling.

Most people would be surprised to learn that Connecticut does not have a specific homeschooling statute. That is, the state does not have a law that enumerates, in list form, the requirements that must be fulfilled by each and every homeschooler. Instead, Connecticut has General Statute 10-184, a law that addresses compulsory education and compulsory attendance, but that never actually mentions the word "homeschooling."

The compulsory education portion of 10-184, known as Ludlow's Code, was enacted in 1650. It states the following:

All parents and those who have the care of children shall bring them up in some lawful and honest employment and instruct them or cause them to be instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of the town, state and federal governments.

Summary: Parents are responsible for the education of their children, either by doing it themselves or by engaging someone else to do the teaching. In 1650, that probably meant a private tutor. In 2006, it means a public or private school.

The compulsory attendance portion of 10-184, on the other hand, was added much later (1872) and has been modified several times since. It reads as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this section and Section 10-15c, each parent or other person having control of a child five years of age and over and under eighteen years of age shall cause such child to attend a public day school regularly during the hours and terms the public school in the district wherein such child resides is in session, unless such child is a high school graduate or the parent or person having control of such child is able to show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools. The parent or person having control of a child sixteen or seventeen years of age may consent, as provided in this section, to such child's withdrawal from school. Such parent or person shall personally appear at the school district office and sign a withdrawal form. The school district shall provide such parent or person with information on the educational options available in the school system and in the community. The parent or person having control of a child five years of age shall have the option of not sending the child to school until the child is six years of age and the parent or person having control of a child six years of age shall have the option of not sending the child to school until the child is seven years of age. The parent or person shall exercise such option by personally appearing at the school district office and signing an option form. The school district shall provide the parent or person with information on the educational opportunities available in the school system.

Summary: Parents are responsible for the education of their children and must send them to public school UNLESS one of the following four conditions is met:

1) the child is a high school graduate
2) the child is age 16-17 and has withdrawn school
3) the child is age 5-6 and the parent has delayed school entry
4) the parent is able to show equivalent instruction

Enter confusion. What exactly is "“equivalent instruction?" At present, the state has no specific, statutory, legal definition of this term. Instead, it has the Guidelines for Home Instruction, a suggested procedure contained in a Department of Education Circular Letter. This procedure, if followed, is accepted as demonstrating equivalent instruction. However, this is only a procedure and, as such, does not carry the full force and effect of law. Therefore, compliance on the part of the parent is, technically, voluntary.

So, how did a legal requirement to show equivalent instruction come to be demonstrated by an optional procedure? In the early 1990's, the parties concerned about the right to homeschool in our state (e.g., HSLDA and a few others) negotiated an agreement with the state Department of Education. The state promised not to pass a restrictive homeschooling statute that would burden home education, while the homeschoolers agreed to follow the Guidelines for Home Instruction so that further regulation to define "equivalent instruction"” would be unnecessary. Admittedly, a loosely organized mechanism of accountability, but one that has worked extremely well because it gives each party the ability to accomplish their educational tasks with the smallest possible legal burden. The state is notified that we, as homeschoolers, are truly educating our children as required by law, and we, as homeschoolers, retain the freedom to design a curriculum that meets the needs of our individual children and reflects our personal philosophical/theological beliefs.

As a faith-based homeschooler, I believe this arrangement works well for another reason. It operates on faith. Each party must have faith that they can satisfy their educational requirements; each party must have faith that the other will abide by the guidelines; and each party must have faith that the agreement they negotiated so many years ago remains the best possible mechanism by which to accomplish the ultimate goal: educating our children. Whether public educational official or homeschooling parent, ultimately we are all functioning on faith. I, for one, encourage my fellow homeschoolers to step out in faith and voluntarily abide by the Guidelines for Home Instruction.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. --- Hebrews 11:1 NASB