Examining Connecticut’s Safety Net for Children
Withdrawn from School for the Purpose of
Homeschooling—Supplemental Investigation To
OCA’s December 12 2017 Report Regarding the Death
of Matthew Tirado
April 26 2018

Introduction
On February 14 2017, Matthew Tirado, a teenager diagnosed with Autism and Intellectual Disability,
died by Homicide from prolonged child abuse and neglect. In 2018, Matthew’s mother, Katiria Tirado,
who was responsible for Matthew’s care, pled guilty to a charge of Manslaughter in the First Degree.
In December 2017, OCA published an investigative report regarding the circumstances leading to
Matthew’s death. OCA found that Matthew, though enrolled in the Hartford Public Schools, had not
been allowed by his mother to attend school for approximately one year prior to his death. OCA also
learned that despite numerous reports by the school district to DCF alleging abuse and neglect in the
Tirado home over the years, in November 2017 Ms. Tirado successfully withdrew Matthew’s younger
sister from school by simply filing a notice with the district that she would “homeschool” the child.
The school district did not notify DCF of the child’s withdrawal, nor did the district follow up with
the family at any point thereafter prior to Matthew’s death.1 OCA determined that were no district
policies or state law that expressly required district follow-up. In December, 2017 the Juvenile Court
granted DCF’s request to close a child protection proceeding filed on Matthew and his sister’s behalf.
DCF, the Court, and the children’s appointed attorney did not have the information that Matthew’s
sister had been withdrawn from school. After Matthew’s death, DCF’s investigation found no
evidence that his sister was in fact being homeschooled, and Ms. Tirado could provide no explanation
for why she withdrew her younger child from school.

OCA continues to work closely with the Hartford Public Schools’ leadership team regarding many issues
identified in the Matthew Tirado report and related work, and HPS continues to examine and work to
improve its internal policies and practices to support children with disabilities and strengthen the safety net
for vulnerable students.
1

1

 For the full OCA report regarding the circumstances leading to the death of Matthew Tirado, please
see the OCA website: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/MT_final_12_12_2017.pdf. With regard to
many issues identified in OCA’s report/s, Hartford Public Schools is engaged in an active and robust
effort to ensure its compliance and use of best practices with regard to the safety of students. The
OCA continues to consult with the district in this effort, and the district is utilizing the services of an
outside consulting group to support this work.
The purpose of this supplemental report is to outline the investigation steps taken by the OCA as part
of and in follow up to the OCA’s fatality investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of
Matthew Tirado.
As part of the Matthew Tirado fatality investigation, the OCA reviewed information from six (6)
school districts—Hartford and subsequently five additional school districts, geographically and
demographically diverse— as well as information maintained by DCF to learn whether there were
other children who were removed from school to be homeschooled and who lived in families that
had a history of prior involvement with DCF due to reported concerns of abuse or neglect. The OCA
also sought information as to whether the five other districts conduct any follow up with families to
ascertain whether children who are withdrawn from school are receiving an equivalent education.
Summary of Findings
Based on the data requested from the six school districts, OCA learned that over a span of three
academic years, 2013 through 2016, there were 380 students withdrawn from the six (6) districts to be
homeschooled, and that 138 of these children (36 percent) lived in families that were the subject of at
least one prior accepted report to DCF for suspected abuse or neglect. The majority of these families
had a history of multiple prior reports to DCF of suspected child abuse or neglect. OCA also learned
that none of the six districts had protocols to conduct follow up with the withdrawn student or his/her
family, such as an assessment of academic progress or a portfolio review of work, as suggested by the
State Department of Education in previously-issued agency guidance.
Connecticut law is, at best, unclear as to whether a school district has an obligation to check in with
or ensure that a student who has been withdrawn to be homeschooled is receiving an equivalent
education as the term is used in state compulsory education law. OCA’s review of Connecticut and
surveys of homeschooling/compulsory attendance laws in the fifty (50) states reveals that Connecticut
and ten (10) other states have no regulation or notice requirements regarding homeschooled children.
Thirty-nine (39) other states are identified as having some, moderate or high regulation of
homeschooling. The lack of regulation in Connecticut for homeschooling leaves an unclear framework
for parents, districts, and, where there are concerns of abuse or neglect, for DCF to follow.
OCA’s report outlines the following: 1) describes the information sought and obtained by OCA
regarding withdrawn children in the six (6) districts, 2) outlines Connecticut’s current compulsory
school attendance law, 3) summarizes other states’ approaches to the regulation of
homeschooling/compulsory schooling, and 4) recommends that Connecticut bring stakeholders
together to consider a regulatory framework for homeschooling that will provide a safety net for
withdrawn students, fulfill the state’s interest in ensuring children are educated while still supporting
parents’ right to homeschool.
This report does not seek to examine, criticize or challenge the merits of homeschooling nor is OCA
challenging the right of parents to make individual choices that support the best interests and
educational well-being of their children. OCA’s investigation was solely focused on understanding the
2

 processes by which children are withdrawn from school, whether there are children who are
withdrawn from school who have a history of having been abused or neglected or whose family has a
history of reported abuse/neglect concerns, and whether the state has a regulatory framework in place
that permits a safety net for withdrawn children who may be removed from school and denied an
education.
The Office of the Child Advocate
The OCA is an independent oversight agency authorized to: (i) “[r]eview complaints of persons
concerning the actions of any state or municipal agency providing services to children . . . through
funds provided by the state,” “[e]valuate the delivery of services to children by state agencies and those
entities that provide services to children through funds provided by the state” and “[t]ake all possible
action including, but not limited to, conducting programs of public education, undertaking legislative
advocacy and making proposals for systemic reform and formal legal action, in order to secure and
ensure the legal, civil and special rights of children who reside in this state.”2 State law provides that
“the Child Advocate shall have access to, including the right to inspect and copy, any records necessary
to carry out the responsibilities of the Child Advocate… [and] may issue a subpoena for the
production of such records.”3

Methodology
In conjunction with and in follow-up to the OCA’s child fatality investigation into the death of
Matthew Tirado on February 14 2017, the OCA examined state law and local practices regarding the
withdrawal of students from school for the purpose of being home-schooled. The OCA undertook
the following activities in conjunction with this review:









2
3

Review of state law regarding school attendance and enrollment.
Review of state law regarding the mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect.
Review of agency guidance promulgated by the Connecticut Department of Education
regarding home-schooling.
Survey of multiple states’ statutory-regulatory framework for withdrawn/homeschooled
students.
Review of information from six Connecticut school districts regarding all students who were
withdrawn to be homeschooled during a three year period (2013-2016).
Review of child protection records pertaining to students who were withdrawn from school
to be home-schooled between 2013 and 2016.
Correspondence and discussion with school district administrators, school law practitioners,
and representatives from the Department of Children and Families and the State Department
of Education.
Review of case law examining state laws regulating the withdrawal of students to be homeschooled.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13l.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13m.
3

 Connecticut Law Regarding Compulsory Schooling
Connecticut law does not use the term “homeschool” in any statutes or regulations. Rather, there is
state law that compels a parent to ensure their school-age child attends school or receives an equivalent
education. Reciprocally, state law requires local school districts to ensure that school-age children are
enrolled. Specifically, and in accordance with Connecticut state statutes, parents and guardians are
required to ensure:
a child five years of age and over and under eighteen years of age shall cause such child
to attend a public school regularly during the hours and terms the public school in the
district in which 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. (Emphasis added). [1]
Boards of Education are required to:
cause each child five years of age and over and under eighteen years of age
who is not a high school graduate and is living in the school district to attend
school in accordance with the provisions of section 10-184, and shall perform
all acts required of it by the town or necessary to carry into effect the powers
and duties imposed by law.” [2]
A parent may choose not to enroll a student until age 7.
Agency Guidance to School Districts Regarding Homeschooled Children
In 1994, the Connecticut State Department of Education (“SDE”) published guidance to school
districts outlining the agency’s view of how districts can and should comply with school enrollment
requirements in the context of homeschooling. The SDE’s guidance stated:

[1]Conn.

Gen. Stat. § 10-184, entitled “Duties of parents. School attendance age requirements,” provides, in
relevant part, that: “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. 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 school regularly during the hours and terms the public school in the district in which
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.”
[2] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-220, entitled, “Duties of boards of education,” provides, in relevant part, that: “Each
local or regional board of education . . . . shall cause each child five years of age and over and under eighteen
years of age who is not a high school graduate and is living in the school district to attend school in accordance
with the provisions of section 10-184, and shall perform all acts required of it by the town or necessary to carry
into effect the powers and duties imposed by law.”
4

 [if] parents wish to educate their child in their home, they must show
equivalency as described in Section 10-184 and local boards of education must
determine whether or not such a child is receiving equivalent instruction as
required by Section 10-220.4
The SDE’s suggested procedures for home instruction provide:
[a]n annual portfolio review will be held with the parents and school officials
to determine if instruction in the required courses has been given [and any]
continued refusal by the parent to comply with the reasonable request of the
school district . . . to participate in an annual portfolio review may cause the
child to be considered truant.5
SDE’s guidance provides that compliance with the suggested procedures contained in its
Circular C-14 would satisfy the statutory requirements contained in §§ 10-184 and 10-220. Id.
OCA’s Review of Data Regarding Children Withdrawn to Be Homeschooled
in Six Connecticut School Districts
OCA reviewed six (6) school districts’ withdrawal/homeschooling practices, including the Hartford
Public Schools where Matthew Tirado and his younger sister attended. The sampling of school
districts included two large urban school districts, two small districts, and two mid-sized suburban
districts.
Districts were asked to provide the following data:


Any student who was withdrawn from the District to be home-schooled at any point
during the past three (3) years, including the student’s name, age, grade and ethnicity and
whether the student had an Individualized Education Program (IEP).6



With respect to each such student being home-schooled: (i) copy of Notice of Intent to
Provide Home Instruction; and (ii) any documentation related to a subsequent
portfolio/school work review by District staff.

All of the districts reported that children had been withdrawn during the period under review to be
homeschooled. No district reported that it follows the SDE Circular Guidance. None of the districts
regularly conduct follow-up portfolio reviews with parents and withdrawn students, though some
district administrators indicated that they offer the portfolio review to the family and leave the matter
to the discretion of the parent. None of the districts were able to produce data or documentation that
any follow-up is systematically done with students who were withdrawn from school to be
homeschooled. Multiple district administrators stated concern with what they perceive is the lack of
See Circular C-14 (July, 1994-95)
Id.
6
OCA is still reviewing this information as we do not have it from all districts. Where it was received, OCA
notes that there are many children who are withdrawn to be homeschooled who were identified as having an
IEP by the district.
4
5

5

 clear statutory authority for districts to follow with withdrawn and homeschooled students. One
administrator stated that they used to require portfolio reviews until a few parents objected and as a
result the district made the practice discretionary. Another administrator stated that the district could
produce no documentation regarding follow-up with homeschoolers but that after the OCA’s inquiry,
the district would work to strengthen its practices.
The Six School Districts Received Notifications of Intent to Home-school A Total of 380 Students
Between 2013 and 2016.


School District A had a total of 18 students withdrawn from the District to be homeschooled
during the past three academic years.



School District B had a total of 189 students withdrawn from the District to be homeschooled
during the past three academic years.



School District C had a total of 36 students withdrawn from the District to be homeschooled
during the past three academic years.



School District D had a total of 44 students withdrawn from the District to be homeschooled
during the past three academic years.



School District E (Hartford Public Schools) had a total of 69 students withdrawn from the
District to be homeschooled during the past three academic years.



School District F had a total of 24 students withdrawn from the District to be homeschooled
during the past three academic years.
More Than a Third of Children Who Were Withdrawn From School to Be
Homeschooled in the Six Districts Lived in Families that Had Prior
Involvement with DCF due to Reported Concerns of Abuse or Neglect

OCA cross-referenced the names of each child whose information was provided by the school district
with the state’s child protection record database, maintained by DCF. OCA sought information
regarding how many children who had been withdrawn from school and not followed up with lived
in families that had been the subject of a previous accepted report to DCF for concerns of suspected
child abuse or neglect.7 OCA found that across the six districts, 139 out of the 380 students withdrawn
to be homeschooled during the previous three academic years lived in families that were the subject
of at least one prior accepted report to DCF for suspected abuse or neglect, with a range of 25% of
the students withdrawn to be homeschooled in one district to over 40 % in another district.

Reports to DCF of suspected abuse or neglect may be accepted or “non-accepted” depending on whether
DCF determines that, based on the information provided, the allegation rises to the level of suspected abuse
or neglect as defined by state law. See also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120 and 17a-101a.
7

6

 Data Regarding Family Child Welfare Involvement for Children Withdrawn
from School to Be Homeschooled in the Six School Districts Reviewed By
OCA. N= 139.
 17 children lived in families with 1 prior accepted report to DCF and where
there was no substantiation for abuse/neglect.
 90 children lived in families that were the subject of multiple prior accepted
reports to DCF.
 Range of accepted reports to DCF was 2 – 30.
 43 children lived in families that were the subject of 4 or more prior accepted
reports to DCF.
 Most families (more than 75%) in the cohort OCA examined were the
subject of accepted reports dated 2013 to the present.
Hartford Public School data
In connection with the Matthew Tirado report, OCA closely examined the child protection case
records of all of the withdrawn students whose families had DCF history. Histories with DCF varied
by date and severity. HPS provided information that there were 69 children withdrawn from the
district between 2013 and 2016 to be homeschooled. Of those 69 children, 28 of the children’s families
had prior DCF history, and approximately 12 of the children’s families had very recent involvement
with DCF--within 12 months prior or concurrent to the child being withdrawn from school.
Hartford’s data did not always contain exact dates of withdrawal from school, and other data contained
inconsistent dates. OCA’s findings are based on the data provided by the district and review of relevant
child welfare records.
Case Examples from the Six Districts
Given the numbers of cases of students who were withdrawn from school to be homeschooled and
whose families had a history of prior DCF involvement, OCA sampled child welfare cases of children
in each of the school districts for the purpose of taking a more in-depth review of that history. OCA
reviewed some cases where children had already been withdrawn to be homeschooled but where DCF
subsequently became involved again for other reasons. In some of these cases, per child welfare
records, the children reported receiving instruction in their home either from the parent or from a
computer-based curriculum. In other cases where DCF was again involved and the child was already
being homeschooled there was little documentation of the nature of the child’s education. In many
cases OCA reviewed, the DCF involvement pre-dated the child’s withdrawal from school so OCA
has no information about the nature of the education ultimately provided to the withdrawn child.
Below are certain case examples that illustrate the need for a safety net for withdrawn students.
Case Example (1)
In 2016, two children in the family, ages 8 and 12, were removed from school to be homeschooled.
The children’s family has a history of six prior accepted reports to DCF between 2011 and 2015. In
2011, DCF received a report alleging substance abuse and physical neglect of the children by their
mother. Reports were not substantiated and the case closed. In 2012, DCF received new reports of
physical and emotional neglect of the children and substance abuse by the mother. Reports were not
7

 substantiated and the case was closed. In 2012, DCF received a report from the school alleging
educational neglect of one of the children after the child was reportedly absent for more than 50 days
of school. The district indicated that the child was homeschooled the previous year but that he had
been re-registered for the current school year. DCF was unable to complete its assessment with the
family and the case was closed. In 2014, DCF received a report alleging medical neglect of one of the
children; the report stated that the child has specialized needs and the parents missed 21 appointments
in 7 months, including well-child and specialist appointments. DCF opened the case for ongoing
review. In 2015, DCF received a report from the school district alleging physical neglect of the children
by the parents. The report alleged that the children come to school with a foul odor and no clean
clothes. The district stated that it was seeking DCF intervention to assist the family. The children’s
mother reported to DCF that she grew up in foster care, and that she now has multiple mental health
diagnoses, and that she used to hear voices. The children’s father reported that he also grew up in
foster care. The mother reported to DCF that the family is homeless and that the children are bullied
at school because their youngest brother sometimes urinates on himself. DCF met with the children
who reported that they liked school and have friends. The five year old reported that he likes school
because his teachers are nice. He reported that he is safe in his home, but that his parents hit him with
a belt “for being bad.” He reported that “he sees his parents arguing and hitting each other and it
makes him feel sad.” He reported that he wets himself because he has to use the bathroom and that
his friends at school make fun of him. The middle child reported that she goes to school, is not bullied
and has lots of friends. She reported that she “wants to make things when she grows up.” The oldest
brother, sixth grade, reported that he likes school and has friends, but that his young sibling is bullied
and he tries to protect him. He reported that his parents are peaceful and do not hit him or his siblings.
During the DCF involvement the family obtained housing and the family circumstances appeared to
improve. DCF noted that the youngest child, age 2, had not been to the doctor in more than two years
despite having certain special health care needs and a history of reported concerns of medical neglect.
DCF expressed concerns that the parents need to follow up with the children’s medical care and
services. The family agreed to cooperate with a referral to community-based services and the DCF
case closed. Three days later, the two older children, age 8 and 12, were withdrawn from school to be
homeschooled—DCF was not notified.
Case Example (2)
In January 2017, Student No. 1, age 15, and Student No. 2, age 10, were withdrawn from a school
district by their mother. The children’s mother submitted the following letter to the school district:
“Effective immediately, I am withdrawing my children . . . from the . . . Public School District. They
will be homeschooling in accordance with CT General Statute 10-184.” Records indicate that both
children have disabilities.
Child protection records reviewed by OCA indicate that the family had been the subject of seven prior
reports to DCF in two states, including Connecticut. The family had four prior reports to State 1’s
child protection agency between December of 2002 and September of 2006 and three accepted reports
to Connecticut DCF from September of 2008 through May of 2014. In State 1 there were three reports
of unsanitary living conditions in the home and one report of physical abuse of a sibling of both
students. Per Connecticut DCF records, in State 1, mother’s mental health was an on-going concern,
and she received treatment for certain mental health issues. In Connecticut, there were three reports
of unsanitary living conditions and cleanliness of the home and the children. At one point there was
no electricity in the home.

8

 In 2015, a school staff member reported to DCF that Student No. 2 had a bruise on his face, which
was reportedly caused by one of his parents. DCF investigated and the family stated that the bruising
was accidentally inflicted when the family members were playfully rough-housing. DCF did not
substantiate the allegation of abuse and closed the case at intake. In January 2017, the student and a
sibling were withdrawn from school. DCF was not notified, nor does state law or best practice
necessarily compel such notification.
Case Example (3)
In October 2016, Student, 8 years old , was withdrawn from school to be homeschooled. In 2013, the
child was the subject of a report to DCF by the school district that he was missing excessive amounts
of school despite a family resource professional contacting the family on a weekly basis. DCF records
indicate that the mother has a criminal history which included arrests for drug possession, assault and
threatening. School personnel reported that the child’s mother had been referred for a family resource
center but had not followed through. DCF documented its concern that mother was overwhelmed.
DCF made a referral for the family for community services, which was agreed to by the mother, and
the child protection case was closed. In 2017, nine months after the student was withdrawn from
school to be homeschooled, DCF accepted a report from a community professional alleging concerns
that the mother was using drugs in the home, and allowing a sex offender to be in the home and that
the mother allows people she recently meets to stay at the home and watch her children. DCF’s
investigation confirmed that two children in the home had been withdrawn from school to be
homeschooled. One of the children, age 9, reported learning about math and science at home and
having fun with mom. The younger child, age 8, reported that there are lots of people in the home
that “do not talk to us a lot,” and that during the day he plays games, watches movies and plays board
games, does worksheets and reads. He denied knowing what drugs were but reported that “mother
smokes her medicine… in her room with her door shut.” The children’s mother reported that she
sends work to the local elementary school to be reviewed. When DCF contacted the local school,
school personnel stated that they had no information on the children being homeschooled, that the
children’s mother had never brought any work to the school to show “proof that the children were
being homeschooled,” and that DCF should contact the District’s central office. A representative
from the district’s central office told the DCF social worker to speak with the local school as all work
would be reviewed by school personnel. DCF substantiated neglect of the two children on the grounds
of exposing the children to substance use and inappropriate caretakers. The children’s father then
successfully petitioned the local family court for custody of the children.
Case Example (4)
In May 2015, the local school district contacted DCF with concerns about educational neglect of at
least one elementary school age child in a family’s home. The parent indicated that she was
homeschooling one of her children, 3rd grade, and intended to homeschool her other child, 4th grade,
but had not yet provided the district with a notice of intent to homeschool regarding the second child.
School personnel reported to DCF that they visited the home, as neither child was attending school,
and observed that both children were playing video games. The district referred the family to town
youth services, but the family did not want to engage in that service. DCF accepted the referral from
the district but outreach efforts with the children’s mother were unsuccessful. Eventually DCF was
able to confirm with the school district that the children’s mother had since signed her child out of
school and provided notice of her intent to homeschool. The notice of intent stated that an “Annual
Portfolio Review will be held on or about CERTAIN DATE.” There is no documentation from the
9

 school district that a portfolio review ever occurred. DCF closed the file stating that: “Risk and safety
were unable to be assessed as family would not cooperate.”
The family had a history of three prior reports to DCF in which, according to child welfare records,
the children’s mother chose not to cooperate with DCF, including “three prior unsubstantiated reports
dating back to 2006, with DCF last involved in 2011 due to issues of [possible physical abuse],
inadequate shelter and family violence.” All three cases closed at the investigations stage.
The case re-opened with DCF in 2018 due to allegations of physical neglect and possible educational
neglect of one of the children. The case is pending.
Case Example (5)
In March 2017, Student No. 1, age 16, was withdrawn from the school district. The District was not
able to provide OCA with any forms or copies of letters from the Student’s parent/s making that
change. The family was the subject of seven prior reports to DCF. In 2005, a report was made by the
school district, alleging educational neglect of children in the home. The children were not enrolled in
school until October and had already missed 25 days of school. The children’s mother reported that
she had moved, and that one of the children had been bullied the year before. The parent did not
agree to sign releases. The case was unsubstantiated and closed. In 2008, a report was made to DCF
by law enforcement regarding a physical altercation between the parents in which the children’s
mother allegedly assaulted the father in the presence of a child. The mother was arrested for Disorderly
Conduct. The allegation was not substantiated as there was no evidence the child was impacted. In
2009, a report was made to DCF by law enforcement regarding a domestic incident between father
and a child in home. Father was arrested. In 2010, new reports were made to DCF by a community
provider regarding domestic violence in the home. The children’s mother did not sign releases for
DCF but indicated that she could meet the needs of the children and would use a safety plan. In 2012,
another report was made to DCF by a school district alleging that one of the children had been kicked
out of his home by his mother due to allegedly out of control behaviors. DCF became involved but
the child’s mother declined to cooperate, and the mother reported that the child was unwilling to
speak with DCF. DCF provided the family with information about available services. In 2013, DCF
received another report from a community provider indicating that one child in the home was
admitted for psychiatric reasons and disclosed being hit by his mother and another child in the home.
Child expressed worry about DCF involvement. Child did not make a specific disclosure about an
incident or an injury and the DCF Careline declined to accept the report. In 2017, one of the children
told a school staff member that she was hit by her mother during an argument. School staff reported
seeing a “bruise the size of a small apple,” and the school nurse reported that “mother must [have]
used some force because … it was a good mark.” School personnel reported that child additionally
stated that that mother threatened to hit her again that morning and that “mother is angry and stressed
all of the time.” DCF opened the case for investigation. The child’s mother tape-recorded the DCF
social worker’s interview with the child who denied being hit, stated that the bruise was from an
accident, and that she had no concerns of any kind about her home life. When asked by the worker
why the report received by DCF had different information, the child “informed [the DCF worker]
that there must have been some sort of misunderstanding.” DCF did not observe unsafe conditions
in the home at this time. During the pendency of the investigation, the mother withdrew another older
child from school. That child reported to DCF during a conversation that was also taped by the
children’s mother that he was going to be homeschooled because he was having a “hard time” in
school. He denied any concerns in the home.
10

 Case Example (6)
Student, grade 9, was removed from school in May 2016. The student’s family was involved with DCF
several times prior to 2016 for concerns of neglect, including educational neglect. The school district
reported to DCF that the child was regularly absent, and that the child’s mother did not respond to
letters or requests to meet with school officials. The district filed a Family With Service Needs
(FWSN) Petition with the Juvenile Court (on truancy grounds) in 2014 and again in 2015 due to the
child’s lack of attendance in school and specialized psychiatric needs. The child was withdrawn from
school in 2016.
OCA follow up: When OCA looked to follow up on this case, child welfare records indicated that in
2017 a new case was filed with DCF over concerns of emotional/physical neglect. DCF investigation
records indicated that the child was not enrolled in school. Records include no information regarding
homeschooling. The child’s family reported to DCF that they intended to enroll the child in Job Corps.
Case Example (7)
Student was removed from school at some point during the last couple of years (district did not
provide OCA with specific date). The child’s family had a history of multiple prior reports to DCF,
including reported concerns of educational neglect: one report alleged the child had accumulated 70
absences by the spring of a recent school year. The district also filed a Family with Service Needs
Petition on truancy grounds. DCF referred the family for services with community providers. A
community provider subsequently called DCF and alleged the child was educationally neglected. DCF
re-opened the case for ongoing review and filed a neglect petition with the Juvenile Court. DCF
opened another case regarding the family in 2016 due to recurrent allegations of neglect, and the
child’s mother informed DCF that the child was not enrolled in school and was being homeschooled.
Child was also on probation for “fighting,” or “stealing.” Child welfare record includes concerns that
that the child has unmet mental health treatment needs. DCF closed the case in 2016, after referring
the family for additional services. The DCF record notes that the child’s mother stated she reregistered the child in school.

Other States’ Approaches to Home-Schooling Regulation
Home-schooling is regulated by many states, though approaches to such oversight and regulation vary.
Connecticut is identified as a state with very few requirements or regulations with regard to
homeschooling.8 The Home School Legal Defense Association identifies neighboring states such as
New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Maine as
having moderate to high regulation of home-schooling.9 According to home-schooling law/regulation
clearinghouse sites and OCA’s own review, certain states require a parent to keep records of a child’s
progress, submit an affidavit regard intent to home school, require annual renewal notifications, or
other requirements. Several states have a form of ongoing assessment requirement, qualifications of
See Coalition for Responsible Home Education—Advocating for Homeschooled Children:
https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/current policy/record -keeping/(Nov. 27, 2017);
see also Homeschool State Laws-Homeschool Laws For The 50 United States:
http://homeschoolstatelaws.com/.
9 See the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) https://www.hslda.org/about/(Nov. 27, 2017).
8

11

 proposed home-school teacher (typically a high school diploma or equivalent), or other requirements
for special-needs students. Connecticut statutes are silent on all of the elements identified herein.
The Homeschooling Legal Defense Association’s breaks down the 50 states’ frameworks for
regulating homeschooling into the following categories--10
1. States with High Regulation (5)
New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont.
2. States with Moderate Regulation (18)
Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida,
Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii.
3. States With Low Regulation (16)
Delaware, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska,
Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California.
4. States with No Notice Requirement [Regulation] (11)
Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas,
Idaho, and Alaska.
A Massachusetts Supreme Court case, Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools, 428 Mass. 512 (1998),11 addressed
the type of regulatory/oversight requirements a local school district may create for families to
homeschool their children. The Court held that Massachusetts’ compulsory school attendance law
provides a “statutory exemption [which] authorizes approved home education for children, and, in so
doing, protects the basic constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children. This
right is subject to the State’s interest in seeing that children in home education programs receive an
education.”12 The Court held that districts “may enforce, through the approval process … certain
reasonable educational requirements similar to those required for public and private schools.” The
Court enumerated that districts may require:
1.
2.
3.
4.

10

Certain mandatory courses be taught.
The competence of the proposed teacher.
The length of the school year and hours of instruction.
That parents furnish school officials with access to textbooks, workbooks, and other
instructional aids, as well as lesson plans and teaching manuals.

https://hslda.org/content/laws/

11

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8767001217683791564&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=sc
holarr
12 Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools, 428 Mass. at 514.
12

 5. That the parent employ periodic standardized testing or other means of evaluating the
children’s progress.
The Court held that with appropriate requirements, there “may be no need for periodic on-site visits
or observations of the home learning environment by school authority personnel.”13 The Court noted
that “examination of the statutes and regulations throughout the country discloses that the States have
concluded that their interests can be satisfied if the home education plan complies with a list of
requirements which are similar to those described in [MA case law], including periodic assessment of
the child’s progress by means of standardized testing or other alternatives that measure aptitude and
learning.”14 The Massachusetts’ Court’s opinion references the fact that, at that time, “39 states require
parents to notify the State or the school district of their intent to homeschool their children, … and
many require compliance with State time and curriculum mandates … Many states focus on teacher
qualifications, and those that group home schools with other private schools require teacher
certification. .. Almost all States require periodic assessment of home schooled students’ academic
progress.”15
Brief Discussion
From the OCA’s December 12 2017 Child Fatality Investigative Report—Matthew Tirado—
There is no specific language in state law regarding home-schooling
requirements. There is no specific law regarding when and how a district should
or must address any concerns it has about a parent’s intent to home-school
where there are recent or active concerns about child abuse or neglect. OCA
finds, however, that other state laws regarding the duties of mandated reporters,
including school employees, to report suspected abuse and neglect of children
may implicate a district’s procedures for processing homeschool notifications.
There must be a safety net to protect children who are victims of abuse and
neglect from being withdrawn from the safe harbor and visibility of school and
removed to a less or even potentially non-visible environment, with the
consequence of either no education or continued lack of protection from abuse
and neglect. Even for children who have never been victims of abuse or neglect,
there must be some mechanism for ensuring that children are actually being
homeschooled.
In Matthew’s and his sister’s case, when Ms. Tirado filed a request to homeschool her daughter only months after the district contacted DCF and the
Judicial Branch with educational neglect concerns about that child, and while
Ms. Tirado had not permitted Matthew to attend school for almost a year (with

Brunelle at 515.
Brunelle at 516.
15 Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools, 428 Mass. at 516, n. 7.
13
14

13

 no formal withdrawal or request to home-school), the district should have
immediately contacted the DCF Careline with a new report.16
Connecticut state law does contain language that requires parents of school-age children to ensure
their children are enrolled in school or be “able to show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent
instruction.” The district is required to “cause each child … living in the school district to attend
school … and shall perform all acts required of it … to carry into effect the powers and duties imposed
by law.” SDE’s Circular Letter from 1993 was an attempt to guide districts in how they can implement
these requirements, and the recommended “portfolio review” was the mechanism suggested to ensure
compliance with compulsory education and equivalency requirements. But the current meaning of
state compulsory education laws and their implication for homeschooled students remains open to
interpretation.
In the absence of a clear statutory-regulatory framework for parents and districts to follow regarding
1) notice to districts of the intent to homeschool, 2) how a demonstration of equivalent education is
completed, 3) what constitutes an equivalent education, and 4) how progress of a student must be
gauged through testing or records review, districts and parents are left without a clear set of
requirements to follow.
OCA finds that the absence of any specific state law or regulation regarding the withdrawal of students
to be homeschooled has allowed certain children, some of whom may be documented victims of abuse
or neglect or prior alleged victims of abuse or neglect, to be withdrawn from school without any plan
for follow up or assurances that the child will receive any education at all. The absence of specific
regulation also may confound the approach of child welfare investigators from DCF when they are
investigating an accepted report of child abuse and neglect and develop information that a child in the
home has been withdrawn from school to be homeschooled.
Recommendations
Unlike most states, Connecticut is identified as a state with no regulation of homeschooling. OCA is
not concerned with the merits of homeschooling. OCA is concerned about children who are
withdrawn from school and not provided any education at all and/or who may be living in conditions
that are abusive and neglectful. Home-schooling is regulated by many states, though approaches to
such oversight and regulation vary. OCA strongly recommends that Connecticut stakeholders
consider the unintended consequences of having no clear regulation for homeschooling and the impact
on the safety net for children.
1. A stakeholder group should be convened, inclusive of the CSDE and DCF, school district
personnel, and advocates for homeschooling families, to discuss the merits and components
of a regulatory framework for homeschooling in Connecticut that will minimally ensure a child
withdrawn from school for the purpose of homeschooling is receiving an education and is
making progress in instructed areas.

Hartford Public Schools is engaged in an active and robust effort to improve its framework for mandated
reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect. The OCA continues to consult with the district in this effort,
and the district is utilizing the services of an outside consulting group to support this work.
16

14

 2. The stakeholder group should consider statutory-regulatory frameworks utilized by other
states including requirements regarding 1) notice of withdrawal, 2) curriculum, 3) hours/days
of instruction, 4) teacher qualifications, and 5) assessment and progress.
3. The Connecticut Legislature should receive the stakeholder group’s recommendations and
consider any appropriate modifications to existing state law regarding compulsory education.
4. DCF should consider, as part of and concurrent to the stakeholder group, what processes it
may best employ when it is investigating an already accepted report of suspected child abuse
and neglect and it develops information that a child in the family has been withdrawn from
school to be educated at home.

15

 AppendixSample of State Homeschooling Laws
New York Homeschool Law
New York Homeschooling laws are set by Regulation - Part 100.10 of Regulations of the
Commissioner of Education. According to the HSLDA:
1. Submit a notice of intent.
“Parents or other persons in parental relation to a student of compulsory school attendance age shall
annually provide written notice to the superintendent of schools of their school district of residence
of their intention to educate their child at home by July 1st of each year… Parents who determine to
commence home instruction after the start of the school year, or who establish residence in the school
district after the start of the school year, shall provide written notice of their intention to educate their
child at home within 14 days following the commencement of home instruction.”
2. Submit an Individualized Home Instruction Plan (IHIP).
“[T]he parent shall submit the completed [Individualized Home Instruction Plan] form to the school
district,” within a certain time frame. The district “shall give the parents written notice of any
deficiency in the IHIP,” which must then be revised. A district is empowered to find that the plan is
not compliant with regulatory requirements, which finding the parent may challenge. The IHIP must
include:
1. the child's name, age and grade level;
2. a list of the syllabi, curriculum materials, textbooks or plan of instruction to be used in each
of the required subjects listed in subdivision (e) of this section;
3. the dates for submission to the school district of the parents' quarterly reports as required in
subdivision (g) of this section. These reports shall be spaced in even and logical periods;
4. the names of the individuals providing instruction; and
5. a statement that the child will be meeting the compulsory educational requirements of
Education Law, section 3205 through full-time study at a degree-granting institution, meaning
enrollment for at least 12 semester hours in a semester or its equivalent, if that is the case. In
this situation, the IHIP shall identify the degree-granting institution and the subjects to be
covered by that study.
3. Comply with day, hour, and subject requirements.
a.

Required courses.
1. For purposes of this subdivision, a unit means 6,480 minutes of instruction per
school year.
2. Instruction in the following subjects shall be required:
i.

For grades one through six: arithmetic, reading, spelling, writing, the English
language, geography, United States history, science, health education, music,
16

 visual arts, physical education, bilingual education and/or English as a
second language where the need is indicated.
ii.

For grades seven and eight: English (two units); history and geography (two
units); science (two units); mathematics (two units); physical education (on a
regular basis); health education (on a regular basis); art (one-half unit); music
(one-half unit); practical arts (on a regular basis); and library skills (on a
regular basis). The units required herein are cumulative requirements for
both grades seven and eight.

iii.

The following courses shall be taught at least once during the first eight
grades: United States history, New York State history, and the Constitutions
of the United States and New York State.

iv.

For grades 9 through 12: English (four units); social studies (four units),
which includes one unit of American history, one-half unit in participation in
government, and one- half unit of economics; mathematics (two units);
science (two units); art and/or music (one unit); health education (one-half
unit); physical education (two units); and three units of electives. The units
required herein are cumulative requirements for grades 9 through 12.

v.

Education Law, sections 801, 804, 806 and 808, also require the following
subjects to be covered during grades kindergarten through 12:
a. patriotism and citizenship;
b. health education regarding alcohol, drug and tobacco misuse;
c. highway safety and traffic regulations, including bicycle safety; and
d. fire and arson prevention and safety.

b. Attendance requirements. Each child shall attend upon instruction as follows:
1. The substantial equivalent of 180 days of instruction shall be provided each school
year.
2. The cumulative hours of instruction for grades 1 through 6 shall be 900 hours per
year. The cumulative hours of instruction for grades 7 through 12 shall be 990 hours
per year.
3. Absences shall be permitted on the same basis as provided in the policy of the
school district for its own students.
4. Records of attendance shall be maintained by the parent and shall be made available
to the school district upon request.
5. Instruction provided at a site other than the primary residence of the parents shall be
provided in a building which has not been determined to be in violation of the local
building code.
4. File quarterly reports.

17

 Quarterly reports. On or before the dates specified by the parent in the IHIP, a quarterly report for
each child shall be furnished by the parent to the school district. The quarterly report shall contain
the following:
1. the number of hours of instruction during said quarter;
2. a description of the material covered in each subject listed in the IHIP;
3. either a grade for the child in each subject or a written narrative evaluating the child's
progress; and
4. a written explanation in the event that less than 80 percent of the amount of the course
materials as set forth in the IHIP planned for that quarter has been covered in any subject.
5. Assess your child annually.
Annual assessment. At the time of filing the fourth quarterly report as specified in the IHIP, the
parent shall also file an annual assessment in accordance with this subdivision. The annual
assessment shall include the results of a commercially published norm referenced achievement test
which meets the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subdivision, or an alternative form of
evaluation which meets the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision.
1. Commercially published norm-referenced achievement tests.
i.

The test shall be selected by the parent from one of the following: the Iowa Test of
Basic Skills, the California Achievement Test, the Stanford Achievement Test, the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, a State
Education Department test, or another test approved by the State Education
Department.

ii.

The test shall be administered in accordance with one of the following options, to be
selected by the parents:
a. at the public school, by its professional staff;
b. at a registered nonpublic school, by its professional staff, provided that the
consent of the chief school officer of the nonpublic school is obtained;
c. at a nonregistered nonpublic school, by its professional staff, provided that
the consent of the superintendent of schools of the school district and of the
chief school officer of the nonpublic school is obtained; or
d. at the parents' home or at any other reasonable location, by a New York
State- certified teacher or by another qualified person, provided that the
superintendent has consented to having said certified teacher or other person
administer the test.

iii.

The test shall be scored by the persons administering the test or by other persons
who are mutually agreeable to the parents and the superintendent of schools.

iv.

The test shall be provided by the school district upon request by the parent,
provided that the cost of any testing facilities, transportation, and/or personnel for
testing conducted at a location other than the public school shall be borne by the
parent.
18

 v.

If a score on a test is determined to be inadequate, the program shall be placed on
probation pursuant to subdivision (i) of this section. A student's score shall be
deemed adequate if:
a. the student has a composite score above the 33rd percentile on national
norms; or
b. the student's score reflects one academic year of growth as compared to a
test administered during or subsequent to the prior school year.

2. Alternative evaluation methods. An alternative form of evaluation shall be permitted to be
chosen by the parent only as follows:
i.

for grades one through three, a written narrative prepared by a person specified in
subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph;

ii.

for grades four through eight, a written narrative prepared by a person specified in
subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph. This alternative form of evaluation may be used
no more often than every other school year for these grades;

iii.

for the purposes of this paragraph, the person who prepares the written narrative
shall be a New York State-certified teacher, a home instruction peer group review
panel, or other person, who has interviewed the child and reviewed a portfolio of the
child's work. Such person shall certify either that the child has made adequate
academic progress or that the child has failed to make adequate progress. In the
event that such child has failed to make adequate progress, the home instruction
program shall be placed on probation pursuant to subdivision (i) of this section. The
certified teacher, peer review panel or other person shall be chosen by the parent
with the consent of the superintendent. Any resulting cost shall be borne by the
parent.

3. If a dispute arises between the parents and the superintendent of schools, including disputes
over the administration of the commercially published norm-referenced achievement test or
the use of alternative evaluation methods, the parents may appeal to the board of education.
If the parents disagree with the determination of the board of education, the parents may
appeal to the Commissioner of Education within 30 days of receipt of the board's final
determination.
Probation
Probation.
1. If a child's annual assessment fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (h) of this
section, the home instruction program shall be placed on probation for a period of up to
two school years. The parent shall be required to submit a plan of remediation which
addresses the deficiencies in the child's achievement, and seeks to remedy said deficiencies.
The plan shall be reviewed by the school district. The school district may require the parents
to make changes in the plan prior to acceptance.
2. If after the end of any semester of the probationary period, the child progresses to the level
specified in the remediation plan, then the home instruction program shall be removed from
probation. If the child does not attain at least 75 percent of the objectives specified in the
remediation plan at the end of any given semester within the period of probation, or if after
19

 two years on probation 100 percent of the objectives of the remediation plan have not been
satisfied, the superintendent of schools shall provide the parents with the notice specified in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section and the board of education shall review the determination of
noncompliance in accordance with such paragraph, except that consent of the parents to
such review shall not be required.
3. If, during the period of probation, the superintendent of schools has reasonable grounds to
believe that the program of home instruction is in substantial noncompliance with these
regulations, the superintendent may require one or more home visits. Such home visit(s)
shall be made only after three days' written notice. The purpose of such visit(s) shall be to
ascertain areas of noncompliance with these regulations and to determine methods of
remediating any such deficiencies. The home visit(s) shall be conducted by the
superintendent or by the superintendent's designee. The superintendent may include
members of a home instruction peer review panel in the home visit team.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Homeschooling laws are by statute - Rhode Island General Law/RIGL 16-19-2.
§ 16-19-1. Attendance required.
(a) Every child who has completed, or will have completed, six (6) years of life on or before
September 1 of any school year, or is enrolled in kindergarten, and has not completed
eighteen (18) years of life, shall regularly attend some public day school during all the days
and hours that the public schools are in session in the city or town in which the child
resides… provided, that if the person so charged shall prove that the child has attended, for
the required period of time, a private day school approved by the commissioner of
elementary and secondary education pursuant to § 16-60-6(10); or a course of at-home
instruction approved by the school committee of the town where the child resides; or has
been accepted into an accredited post-secondary education program; or has obtained a
waiver under subsection (b); or that the physical or mental condition of the child was such as
to render his or her attendance at school inexpedient or impracticable; or that the child was
excluded from school by virtue of some other general law or regulation, then attendance
shall not be obligatory nor shall the penalty be incurred.
§ 16-19-2. Approval of private schools – Requirements – Review.
For the purposes of this chapter a private school or at-home instruction shall be approved only
when it complies with the following requirements: (1) that the period of attendance of the pupils in
the school or in the home instruction is substantially equal to that required by law in public schools;
(2) that registers are kept and returned to the school committee, the superintendent of schools,
truant officers, and the department of elementary and secondary education in relation to the
attendance of pupils, and are made the same as registers kept by the public schools; (3) that reading,
writing, geography, arithmetic, the history of the United States, the history of Rhode Island, and the
principles of American government shall be taught in the English language substantially to the same
extent as these subjects are required to be taught in the public schools, and that the teaching of the
English language and of other subjects indicated in this section shall be thorough and efficient;
provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed or operate to deny the
right to teach in private schools or in at-home instruction any of the subjects or any other subject in
20

 any other language in addition to the teaching in English as prescribed in this section; provided,
further, that any interested person resident in any city or town aggrieved by the action of the school
committee of the city or town either in approving or refusing to approve at-home instruction may
appeal the action to the department of elementary and secondary education. The department of
elementary and secondary education, after notice to the parties interested of the time and place of a
hearing, shall examine and decide the appeal without cost to the parties. The commissioner of
elementary and secondary education shall also grant a hearing to any party aggrieved by a refusal to
approve a private school pursuant to § 16-60-6(10). The decision of the board of regents for
elementary and secondary education shall, if an appeal is made to the board, be final.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Homeschooling laws are by statute - Pennsylvania Statute 24 P.S. Section 13-1327.1.
(a) The following words and phrases when used in this section shall have the meanings given to
them in this subsection:
“Appropriate education” shall mean a program consisting of instruction in the required subjects
for the time required in this act and in which the student demonstrates sustained progress in the overall
program.
“Department” shall mean the Department of Education of the Commonwealth.
“Hearing examiner” shall not be an officer, employe or agent of the Department of Education or
of the school district or intermediate unit of residence of the child in the home education program.
“Home education program” shall mean a program conducted, in compliance with this section, by
the parent or guardian or such person having legal custody of the child or children.
“Supervisor” shall mean the parent or guardian or such person having legal custody of the child or
children who shall be responsible for the provision of instruction, provided that such person has a
high school diploma or its equivalent.
(b) The requirements contained in sections 1511 and 1511.1, 1 except as provided for in this
section, and section 1605 2 shall not apply to home education programs. A home education program
shall not be considered a nonpublic school under the provisions of this act.
(1) A notarized affidavit of the parent or guardian or other person having legal custody of the child
or children, filed prior to the commencement of the home education program and annually thereafter
on August 1 with the superintendent of the school district of residence and which sets forth:  the name
of the supervisor of the home education program who shall be responsible for the provision of
instruction;  the name and age of each child who shall participate in the home education program;  the
address and telephone number of the home education program site;  that such subjects as required by
law are offered in the English language, including an outline of proposed education objectives by
subject area;  evidence that the child has been immunized in accordance with the provisions of section
1303(a) and has received the health and medical services required for students of the child's age or
grade level in Article XIV;  and that the home education program shall comply with the provisions of
this section and that the notarized affidavit shall be satisfactory evidence thereof. The required
outline of proposed education objectives shall not be utilized by the superintendent in determining if
the home education program is out of compliance with this section and section 1327.  The affidavit
shall contain a certification to be signed by the supervisor that the supervisor, all adults living in the
home and persons having legal custody of a child or children in a home education program have not

21

 been convicted of the criminal offenses enumerated in subsection (e) of section 111 5 within five years
immediately preceding the date of the affidavit.
(2) In the event the home education program site is relocating to another school district within this
Commonwealth during the course of the public school term or prior to the opening of the public
school term in the fall, the supervisor of the home education program must apply, by registered mail,
thirty (30) days prior to the relocation, to the superintendent of the district in which he or she currently
resides, requesting a letter of transfer for the home education program to the district to which the
home education program is relocating. The current superintendent of residence must issue the letter
of transfer thirty (30) days after receipt of the registered mail request of the home education program
supervisor.
(i) If the home education program is not in compliance with the provisions of this section, the
superintendent of the current district of residence must inform the home education supervisor and
the superintendent of the district to which the home education program is relocating the status of the
home education program and the reason for the denial of the letter of transfer.
(ii) If the home education program is in hearing procedures, as contained in this section, the
superintendent of the current district of residence must inform the home education supervisor, the
assigned hearing examiner and the superintendent of the district to which the home education
program is relocating the status of the home education program and the reason for the denial of the
letter of transfer.
(3) The letter of transfer, required by clause (2), must be filed by the supervisor of the home
education program with the superintendent of the new district of residence. In the case of pending
proceedings, the new district of residence superintendent shall continue the home education program
until the appeal process is finalized.
(c) A child who is enrolled in a home education program and whose education is therefore under
the direct supervision of his parent, guardian or other person having legal custody shall be deemed to
have met the requirements of section 1327 if that home education program provides a minimum of
one hundred eighty (180) days of instruction or nine hundred (900) hours of instruction per year at
the elementary level, or nine hundred ninety (990) hours per year at the secondary level:
(1) At the elementary school level, the following courses shall be taught:  English, to include
spelling, reading and writing;  arithmetic;  science;  geography;  history of the United States and
Pennsylvania;  civics;  safety education, including regular and continuous instruction in the dangers
and prevention of fires;  health and physiology;  physical education;  music;  and art.
(2) At the secondary school level, the following courses shall be taught:  English, to include
language, literature, speech and composition;  science;  geography;  social studies, to include civics,
world history, history of the United States and Pennsylvania;  mathematics, to include general
mathematics, algebra and geometry;  art;  music;  physical education;  health;  and safety education,
including regular and continuous instruction in the dangers and prevention of fires. Such courses of
study may include, at the discretion of the supervisor of the home education program, economics;
 biology;  chemistry;  foreign languages;  trigonometry;  or other age-appropriate courses as contained
in Chapter 5 (Curriculum Requirements) of the State Board of Education.
(d) The following minimum courses in grades nine through twelve are established as a requirement
for graduation in a home education program:
(1) Four years of English.
22

 (2) Three years of mathematics.
(3) Three years of science.
(4) Three years of social studies.
(5) Two years of arts and humanities.
(d.1)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of this act or any other law or regulation to the contrary, a
high school diploma awarded by a supervisor or an approved diploma-granting organization shall be
considered as having all the rights and privileges afforded by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth
agency, including, but not limited to, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a political
subdivision, a local agency and an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth or a political
subdivision to a high school diploma awarded under this act, subject to subparagraphs (i) and (ii):
(i) In the case of a diploma awarded by a supervisor the following shall apply:
(A) The student receiving the diploma shall have completed all the requirements in subsection (d)
while enrolled in a home education program that is in compliance with this section.
(B) The diploma shall be awarded to the student on a standardized form to be developed by the
department and which shall be made available on the department's publicly accessible Internet website.
(C) The diploma shall be signed by the student's twelfth grade evaluator in confirmation of the
student's suitability for graduation.
(ii) In the case of a diploma awarded by an approved diploma-granting organization the following
shall apply:
(A) The student receiving the diploma shall have completed all the requirements in subsection (d)
while enrolled in a home education program that is in compliance with this section.
(B) The diploma shall be awarded to the student on a standardized form to be developed by the
organization.
(2) The department shall establish eligibility criteria and an application process for approving
diploma-granting organizations to award high school diplomas to students enrolled in home education
programs. The department shall maintain a list of approved diploma-granting organizations and post
the list on the department's publicly accessible Internet website.
(e) In order to demonstrate that appropriate education is occurring, the supervisor of the home
education program shall provide and maintain on file the following documentation for each student
enrolled in the home education program:
(1) A portfolio of records and materials. The portfolio shall consist of a log, made
contemporaneously with the instruction, which designates by title the reading materials used, samples
of any writings, worksheets, workbooks or creative materials used or developed by the student and in
grades three, five and eight results of nationally normed standardized achievement tests in
reading/language arts and mathematics or the results of Statewide tests administered in these grade
levels. The department shall establish a list, with a minimum of five tests, of nationally normed
standardized tests from which the supervisor of the home education program shall select a test to be
administered if the supervisor does not choose the Statewide tests. At the discretion of the
supervisor, the portfolio may include the results of nationally normed standardized achievement tests
for other subject areas or grade levels. The supervisor shall ensure that the nationally normed
standardized tests or the Statewide tests shall not be administered by the child's parent or guardian.
23

 (i) A teacher or administrator who evaluates a portfolio at the elementary level (grades kindergarten
through six) shall have at least two years of experience in grading any of the following subjects:
 English, to include spelling, reading and writing;  arithmetic;  science;  geography;  history of the
United States and Pennsylvania;  and civics.
(ii) A teacher or administrator who evaluates a portfolio at the secondary level (grades seven
through twelve) shall have at least two years of experience in grading any of the following subjects:
 English, to include language, literature, speech, reading and composition;  science, to include biology,
chemistry and physics;  geography;  social studies, to include economics, civics, world history, history
of the United States and Pennsylvania;  foreign language;  and mathematics, to include general
mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and geometry.
(iii) As used in this clause, the term “grading” shall mean evaluation of classwork, homework,
quizzes, classwork-based tests and prepared tests related to classwork subject matter.
(2) An annual written evaluation of the student's educational progress as determined by a licensed
clinical or school psychologist or a teacher certified by the Commonwealth or by a nonpublic school
teacher or administrator. Any such nonpublic teacher or administrator shall have at least two years
of teaching experience in a Pennsylvania public or nonpublic school within the last ten years. Such
nonpublic teacher or administrator shall have the required experience at the elementary level to
evaluate elementary students or at the secondary level to evaluate secondary students. The certified
teacher shall have experience at the elementary level to evaluate elementary students or at the
secondary level to evaluate secondary students. The evaluation shall also be based on an interview of
the child and a review of the portfolio required in clause (1) and shall certify whether or not an
appropriate education is occurring. At the request of the supervisor, persons with other qualifications
may conduct the evaluation with the prior consent of the district of residence superintendent. In no
event shall the evaluator be the supervisor or their spouse.
(f) The school district of residence shall, at the request of the supervisor, lend to the home
education program copies of the school district's planned courses, textbooks and other curriculum
materials appropriate to the student's age and grade level.
(f.1) (1) Beginning January 1, 2006, the school district of residence shall permit a child who is
enrolled in a home education program to participate in any activity that is subject to the provisions of
section 511,  6including, but not limited to, clubs, musical ensembles, athletics and theatrical
productions, provided that the child:
(i) Meets the eligibility criteria or their equivalent for participation in the activity that apply to
students enrolled in the school district;
(ii) Meets the tryout criteria or their equivalent for participation in the activity that apply to students
enrolled in the school district;  and
(iii) Complies with all policies, rules and regulations or their equivalent of the governing
organization of the activity.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection, the school district of residence's program of interscholastic
athletics, including varsity sports, shall be considered an activity and shall include all activities related
to competitive sports contests, games, events or exhibitions involving individual students or teams of
students whenever such activities occur between schools within the school district or between schools
outside of the school district.
(3) Where the activity requires completion of a physical examination or medical test as a condition
of participation and the school district of residence offers such physical examination or medical test
24

 to students enrolled in the school district, the school district shall permit a child who is enrolled in a
home education program to access such physical examination or medical test. The school district
shall publish the dates and times of such physical examination or medical test in a publication of
general circulation in the school district and on its publicly accessible Internet website.
(4) A board of school directors may adopt a policy to implement the requirements of this
subsection. Such policy shall only apply to participation in activities and shall not conflict with any
provisions of this section.
(g) When documentation is required by this section to be submitted to the hearing examiner, the
hearing examiner shall return, upon completion of his review, all such documentation to the supervisor
of the home education program. The hearing examiner may photocopy all or portions of the
documentation for his files.
(h) Deleted by 2014, Oct. 31, P.L. 2967, No. 196, § 1 , imd. effective.
(h.1) An evaluator's certification stating that an appropriate education is occurring for the school
year under review shall be provided by the supervisor to the superintendent of the public school
district of residence by June 30 of each year. If the supervisor fails to submit the certification due on
June 30 to the superintendent, the superintendent shall send a letter by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the supervisor of the home education program, stating that the certification is past due
and notifying the supervisor to submit the certification within ten (10) days of receipt of the certified
letter. If the certification is not submitted within that time, the board of school directors shall provide
for a proper hearing in accordance with subsection (k).
(i) Deleted by 2014, Oct. 31, P.L. 2967, No. 196, § 1 , imd. effective.
(i.1) If the superintendent has a reasonable belief, at any time during the school year, that
appropriate education may not be occurring in the home education program, he may submit a letter
to the supervisor, by certified mail, return receipt requested, requiring that an evaluation be conducted
in accordance with subsection (e)(2) and that an evaluator's certification stating that an appropriate
education is occurring for the school year under review, be submitted to the district by the supervisor
within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the certified letter. The certified letter shall include the basis
for the superintendent's reasonable belief. If the tests, as required in subsection (e)(1), have not been
administered at the time of the receipt of the certified letter by the supervisor, the supervisor shall
submit the other required documentation to the evaluator and shall submit the test results to the
evaluator with the completed documentation at the conclusion of the school year. If the certification
is not submitted to the superintendent within thirty (30) days of receipt of the certified letter, the
board of school directors shall provide for a proper hearing in accordance with subsection (k).
(j) Deleted by 2014, Oct. 31, P.L. 2967, No. 196, § 1 , imd. effective.
(j.1) If the superintendent has a reasonable belief that the home education program is out of
compliance with any other provisions of this section, the superintendent shall submit a letter to the
supervisor by certified mail, return receipt requested, requiring a certification to be submitted within
thirty (30) days indicating that the program is in compliance. The certified letter shall include the
basis for the superintendent's reasonable belief. If the certification is not submitted within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the certified letter, the board of school directors shall provide for a proper hearing
in accordance with subsection (k).
(k) If a hearing is required by the provisions of subsection (h.1), (i.1) or (j.1), the board of school
directors shall provide for a proper hearing by a duly qualified and impartial hearing examiner within
thirty (30) days. The examiner shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days of the hearing except
that he may require the establishment of a remedial education plan mutually agreed to by the
superintendent and supervisor of the home education program which shall continue the home
25

 education program. The decision of the examiner may be appealed by either the supervisor of the
home education program or the superintendent to the Secretary of Education, Commonwealth Court
or court of common pleas.
(l) If the hearing examiner finds that the evidence does not indicate that appropriate education is
taking place in the home education program, the home education program for the child shall be out
of compliance with the requirements of this section and section 1327, and the student shall be
promptly enrolled in the public school district of residence or a nonpublic school or a licensed private
academic school. The home education program may continue during the time of any appeal.
(m) At such time as the child's home education program has been determined to be out of
compliance with the provisions of this section and section 1327, the supervisor or spouse of the
supervisor of the home education program shall not be eligible to supervise a home education program
for that child, as provided for in subsection (b)(1) of this section, for a period of twelve (12) months
from the date of such determination.
(n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect Federal or State law relating to special
education for students with disabilities in home education programs.
Virginia
Virginia homeschool laws are regulated by statute, § 22.1-254.1. Declaration of policy; requirements
for home instruction of children.
A. When the requirements of this section have been satisfied, instruction of children by their parents
is an acceptable alternative form of education under the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any
parent of any child who will have reached the fifth birthday on or before September 30 of any school
year and who has not passed the eighteenth birthday may elect to provide home instruction in lieu of
school attendance if he (i) holds a high school diploma; or (ii) is a teacher of qualifications prescribed
by the Board of Education; or (iii) provides a program of study or curriculum which may be delivered
through a correspondence course or distance learning program or in any other manner; or (iv) provides
evidence that he is able to provide an adequate education for the child.
B. Any parent who elects to provide home instruction in lieu of school attendance shall annually
notify the division superintendent in August of his intention to so instruct the child and provide a
description of the curriculum, limited to a list of subjects to be studied during the coming year, and
evidence of having met one of the criteria for providing home instruction as required by subsection
A. Effective July 1, 2000, parents electing to provide home instruction shall provide such annual notice
no later than August 15. Any parent who moves into a school division or begins home instruction
after the school year has begun shall notify the division superintendent of his intention to provide
home instruction as soon as practicable and shall thereafter comply with the requirements of this
section within 30 days of such notice. The division superintendent shall notify the Superintendent of
Public Instruction of the number of students in the school division receiving home instruction.
C. The parent who elects to provide home instruction shall provide the division superintendent by
August 1 following the school year in which the child has received home instruction with either (i)
evidence that the child has attained a composite score in or above the fourth stanine on any nationally
normed standardized achievement test, or an equivalent score on the ACT, SAT, or PSAT test or (ii)
an evaluation or assessment which the division superintendent determines to indicate that the child is
achieving an adequate level of educational growth and progress, including but not limited to (a) an
evaluation letter from a person licensed to teach in any state, or a person with a master's degree or
26

 higher in an academic discipline, having knowledge of the child's academic progress, stating that the
child is achieving an adequate level of educational growth and progress or (b) a report card or
transcript from an institution of higher education, college distance learning program, or homeeducation correspondence school.
In the event that evidence of progress as required in this subsection is not provided by the parent,
the home instruction program for that child may be placed on probation for one year. Parents shall
file with the division superintendent evidence of their ability to provide an adequate education for
their child in compliance with subsection A and a remediation plan for the probationary year which
indicates their program is designed to address any educational deficiency. Upon acceptance of such
evidence and plan by the division superintendent, the home instruction may continue for one
probationary year. If the remediation plan and evidence are not accepted or the required evidence of
progress is not provided by August 1 following the probationary year, home instruction shall cease
and the parent shall make other arrangements for the education of the child which comply with § 22.1254. The requirements of subsection C shall not apply to children who are under the age of six as of
September 30 of the school year.
D. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a pupil and his parents from obtaining an excuse from
school attendance by reason of bona fide religious training or belief pursuant to subdivision B 1 of
§ 22.1-254.
E. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the division superintendent may appeal his decision within
30 days to an independent hearing officer. The independent hearing officer shall be chosen from the
list maintained by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court for hearing appeals of the placements
of children with disabilities. The costs of the hearing shall be apportioned among the parties by the
hearing officer in a manner consistent with his findings.
F. School boards shall make Advanced Placement (AP), Preliminary SAT/National Merit
Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), and PreACT examinations available to students
receiving home instruction pursuant to this section. School boards shall adopt written policies that
specify the date by which such students shall register to participate in such examinations. School
boards shall notify such students and their parents of such registration deadline and the availability of
financial assistance to low-income and needy students to take such examinations.
G. No division superintendent or local school board shall disclose to the Department of Education
or any other person or entity outside of the local school division information that is provided by a
parent or student to satisfy the requirements of this section or subdivision B 1 of § 22.1-254. However,
a division superintendent or local school board may disclose, with the written consent of a student's
parent, such information to the extent provided by the parent's consent. Nothing in this subsection
shall prohibit a division superintendent from notifying the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the
number of students in the school division receiving home instruction as required by subsection B.
Delaware
In Delaware homeschooling is regulated by statute. Title 14, Ch. 27 § 2701 et seq.
§ 2703 Private school attendance or other educational instruction.
Section 2702 of this title shall not apply to any student enrolled in a private school who is receiving
regular and thorough instruction in the subjects prescribed for the public schools of the State in a
manner suitable to children of the same age and stage of advancement, provided that such private
school is subject to and in compliance with § 2704 of this title. For the purposes of this section,
27

 any student who is home-schooled in any manner provided for in § 2703A of this title shall also
be exempt from the provisions of § 2702 of this title. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Justice
of the Peace Court may retain jurisdiction over any case of truancy filed pursuant to § 2729 (failure
to send) of this title or § 2730 (failure to attend) of this title prior to a student withdrawing from
the public school bringing the charge and enrolling in a private or nonpublic school of this State.
§ 2703A Homeschools defined.
For purposes of this chapter, a "homeschool" shall be considered a nonpublic school and there
shall be three types of homeschools defined as follows:
(1) "Multi-family homeschool" means the education of children, primarily by the parents(s) or
legal guardian(s) of such children mainly in one or several residences, or other facilities, when
such children are not all related to each other as brother or sister. A person shall act as a liaison
to the Department of Education for reporting enrollment and attendance information for all
families involved.
(2) "Single-family homeschool" means the education of one's own child(ren) primarily by the
parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of such child(ren) mainly in their own residence.
(3) "Single-family homeschool coordinated with the local school district" means the education
of child(ren) primarily by the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of such child(ren) mainly in their
own residence using a curriculum approved by the local superintendent or the local
superintendent's designee. The local superintendent shall determine in writing that the student
is or will be provided with regular and thorough instruction by the student's parent(s) or legal
guardian(s) in the subjects prescribed for the public schools of the State and in a manner suitable
to children of the same age and stage of advancement.

28